Part of:

Edition used:

John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVII - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part IV, ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972).
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/254

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

LSE: The British Library of Political and Economic Science, at the London School of Economics and Social Science

Leeds: Brotherton Library, University of Leeds

Logic: John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive; being a connected view of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, 2 vols., London, 1843. The references are to the 8th edition, London, 1872

Motley: The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley, ed. George William Curtis, New York, 1889

NAPSS: National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, Transactions, 1857-84, 1886

NLI: The National Library of Ireland, Dublin

NLS: The National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh

NLW: The National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth

NYP: New York Public Library, New York City, New York

No. Am. Rev.: The North American Review, 1815-1940

Osborn Collection, Yale: The James Marshall and Marie-Louise Osborn Collection, Yale University Library

Packe: Michael St. John Packe, Life of John Stuart Mill, London, 1954

Parl. Papers: Sessional Papers printed by order of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, London, 1849-

Pol. Econ.: John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, With Some of Their Application to Social Philosophy, London, 1848. The references are to the last edition revised by JSM (the 7th in 1871) available in the edition of Sir W. J. Ashley, London, 1909, and as Vols. II and III of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J. M. Robson, Toronto, 1965

Edition: current; Page: [iii]

Principles: John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, ed. J. M. Robson, Vols. II and III of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Toronto, 1965. References have been made to this edition only for information not available in other editions of Pol. Econ.

1869

It gave me great pleasure to hear from you & especially to receive a letter shewing so fundamental an agreement in our mode of thinking on the great questions of the future. The emancipation of women, & cooperative production, are, I fully believe, the two great changes that will regenerate society. But though the latter of these may grow up without much help from the action of Parliaments & Congresses, the former cannot. I have always thought with you that the abstinence of many of the best minds in America from political life was to a great degree accounted for by the fact that America, as a rule, needs very little governing. But the present is surely a time in which, even in America, the action of legislation & administration is of transcendant importance; & in the old & complicated societies of Europe the need of political action is always, more or less, what exceptional circumstances make it in America at present. Moreover, a place in Parliament is, in England, a vantage ground from which opinions can be promulgated to a larger audience & with a far greater probability of being listened to, than from any other position except perhaps that of the editor of a widely circulated daily paper. It was with this hope principally that I accepted a seat in Parliament, & on the one subject at least, the political enfranchisement of women, the results have far exceeded my expectation. It is doubtful whether there remains anything of the first importance which I could more effectually help forward by being in Parlt. Personal representation, the greatest political improvement after women’s suffrage which remains to be made, I can help, perhaps as effectively, by my writings. I am therefore quite content on public grounds to be no longer a member of the House, while on private my release justifies and more than justifies, your congratulations.

If you are in England in March or April I shall hope to see you & to compare notes with you on many subjects both American & general.

The painfully interesting papers2 which you kindly forwarded to me have impressed me with a very strong sense of the degree in which official opinion has retrograded in India since I ceased to be a regular reader of Indian official correspondence.3 When I left the India House the feeling that the actual cultivators had claims upon us which we could not ignore was leading to plans for revising in their favour, so far as was still possible even the system established by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal proper;4 Act 10 of 1859,5 with the provisions of which I am very imperfectly acquainted, was, I believe the fruit of this movement. Now, however, there seems to be a reaction towards landlordism of the present English type, at the very time when in England opinion is, though slowly, beginning to turn the contrary way. And, what is most of all deplorable, this reaction seems to be chiefly among the younger men. I do not maintain that the evil is to be ascribed to the constitutional change made in 1858,6 for it is very probable that the mutiny & its consequences would have wrought the same change for the worse if the old organ of government had continued. The greater fear of the natives, & desire of conciliating the natives, which have existed since the mutiny (“the natives” being as usual a mere synonym for the powerful classes, the great landholders) have discredited the ideas of protection to the interests of the great mass of the population which in a more or less enlightened shape had been the animating principle of Indian government for a whole generation. The Talockdars of Oude, the very men whose atrocities were the defence Edition: current; Page: [1537] pleaded for the annexation of the country,7 have been made by us greater men than they ever were; & now everybody, even though a peasant, on whom it is possible to fasten the name of a proprietor is in the opinion of an apparently powerful party, to be treated as if the land & its inhabitants only existed for his benefit. These notions, which I am afraid are ruling the local administration of the Central Provinces as well as the Punjab, naturally find warm support from the ignorant, arriéré, prejudiced & bigotted Toryism of Sir W. Mansfield.8 Until now the strong contrary convictions of Sir John Lawrence9 have moderated the mischief, but India has now got an Irish landlord to rule over her:10 & it is quite uncertain whether his official superior the Duke of Argyll will be any check upon his landlordism.11 There has been no more determined defender than the Duke, of the evictions, in utter defiance of customary & traditional ideas of rights, which have depopulated the North of Scotland.

To look at the matter on another side: is it not monstrous that young settlement officers12 should have had it in their power, without express authorisation or instructions from the Government to reduce to the condition of mere tenants at will in a single district 46000 out of 60000 cultivators who had been declared at the former settlement to have rights of occupancy?13 & that too when they had been so declared on the ground, equitable Edition: current; Page: [1538] enough under the circumstances, of continuous occupation for a minimum period of 12 years, which 10 or 15 years additional occupancy under our rule had increased to a quarter of a century. All this disturbance of recognised rights and authorised expectations, so great an evil anywhere & one of the greatest in India, is incurred for the sake of a retrograde step in economics & social organisation! I hope I am not wrong in collecting from the discussion in Council that these divisions of the Settlement officers will not be upheld unless when they would have been valid divisions under the Act just passed.14 A great part of these however would have been valid under the Act, especially in the case of tenants who have at any time made an admission of their having no rights of occupancy, which I perceive they did in 19000 out of the 46000 cases, & I agree with you in profoundly distrusting these admissions; not only for the very sufficient reasons stated by you in Council, nor only from the great probability that the admissions were often obtained by unfair means, but also from the little value which the natives of India habitually attach to admissions against their own interest, because they have not been accustomed to expect that they will be held bound by them.

Except the exclusion of so large a number of cases from its benefits, I do not see much to complain of in the terms of the compromise established by the new Act. The distinction between Khoodkaust ryots & Pyekaust ryots15 is familiar to all administrators of Northern India, the former being understood to have an inherited right of occupancy of ancient date, while the latter belong to families who have arrived at a comparatively late period & remained on tolerance; though I am not sure that the Pyekaust ryots are always strictly tenants at will. Supposing then that all are allowed rights of occupancy who have a just claim to them, then, when there is no evidence of a right to hold at a fixed rent, it seems as much as they could expect that their rent should be fixed by law at 15 per cent less (your letter by a lapsus calami16 says 15 per cent more) than the rent paid by tenants who have no right of occupancy. It is however a defect that while there is a power given to the proprietor to buy out, on certain terms of compensation the rights of the tenant, the Act gives no power to the tenant to buy out the rights of the landlord. As was well said in the discussion, this is as if the English Copyhold Commission,17 instead of enabling the copyholder to redeem the legal Edition: current; Page: [1539] claim of the lord of the manor, had empowered the lord to turn out the copyholder for a compensation. This omission in the Act admits of being corrected by subsequent legislation. But unless it is done this year you will not be there to do it, & who can tell how your place may be filled?

It has given me great pleasure that your health does not seem to have suffered from your residence in India. You will find abundant work for one like you in England, much of it such as few have anything like your qualifications for performing. I hope that such personal acquaintance with you as I have ever had the good fortune of enjoying18 will be not only renewed but greatly improved after your return to Europe.

I need hardly say that I am very much gratified by your kind letter. I know that you & Mrs McLaren acted for the best & I agree with you that the publication of my letter to her may do some good.2 As a rule however I prefer that my letters should not be made public unless they were written with a view to the contingency of their being so, & I have seen with regret several recent instances in which publicity has been given to them without my consent:3 not that I shrink from exposure to criticism, which any public man, even any writer, ought to welcome, from however hostile a quarter; but because, when writing confidentially to friends who feel as one does oneself, one takes many things for granted which would require explanation to general readers, & one does not guard one’s expressions as prudence & courtesy would require one to do in addressing oneself to those who differ from one. All the letters of mine which have lately been published have been treated by the newspapers exactly as if they had been written for the public & sent to the editors by myself.

It is, as a general rule, best, I think, to ask the writer’s consent before Edition: current; Page: [1540] publishing a letter. This is so flattering a thing to do that there can never be any difficulty in doing it.

I am particularly pleased at your approbation of the last sentence of my letter4 because I can share in it myself, for it was dictated to me as I wrote it word for word by my dear daughter. We always agree in sentiments but she sometimes can find better words to put them in than I can myself.

I beg to acknowledge your letter of Nov. 7. I did not before know to whom I was indebted for the copies of the World. I could perceive that they were sent on account of the reports of the proceedings of the Labour Congress,2 and I availed myself of them to look through those reports, which are doubly interesting to me, by the indications they afford of what is going on in the minds of Americans and in those of the working men. In regard to the other matters touched on in your letter, I am very glad to have your assurance that the payment of the debt in greenbacks is not supported by the Democratic party.3 It is satisfactory at all events, to know that so influential a democratic journal as the World is opposed to it. On the subject of free trade, I have always counted on finding the Democratic party the sounder of the two: and when the question of reconstruction is settled (which, to my thinking, it can never be on the principles of the Democratic party) I look forward to a rearrangement of parties, in which free trade will come into the first rank, and in which representation of minorities may also become prominent: and I may then perhaps be more in sympathy with the Democratic party, and less with those who oppose it, than I now am. Even now I have friends and correspondents among the Democratic party, and I am as desirous to do full justice to that party as I am to all parties in my own country. Neither do I see that any injustice was done them in my published letter.4 If they allow their elected Edition: current; Page: [1541] Convention to profess, for electioneering purposes, doctrines which are not theirs, a stranger is not in fault if, until those doctrines are disavowed, he concludes them to be the doctrines of the party: but I did not do so; I merely expressed my alarm at their being in the programme.

I am much obliged to you for sending me the Tribunes.2 I need hardly say that your letters are most gratifying to myself personally, & that I have read with great interest the picture of the elections as they presented themselves to your mind. In regard to the Westr election I think your first impression of the cause of my defeat was more correct than your subsequent one.3 I may have lost a good many votes by the Bradlaugh business, but not so many as to account for the great difference between Smith’s number at the poll & mine.

On one point I ought to correct your impression. You say it is reported that I spent a great deal of money, some £1100, on my first election & was expected to spend as much more on the second. I was not aware that such things had been said or thought by any one. It is a literal fact that neither of my contests has cost me one penny directly or indirectly. You are right in thinking that I both could and would have paid the expenses had I thought it desirable on public grounds to do so; but having said that I would not I thought it right to adhere to my word, for nothing does more mischief than Edition: current; Page: [1542] high-flown professions which are only intended to be taken cum grano salis by the initiated.

Republican opinions certainly seem to have a much greater number of partisans in Spain than was supposed,4 & the number is likely to increase as the prospect becomes more familiar to people’s minds in the absence of any generally acceptable candidate for the throne.5 But it strikes me that it would be a great mistake on the part of the Republicans to include a President in their programme. They should have a mere Prime Minister, removable by the Cortes. Even in America the inconvenience is very great of having a President & a Congress who if hostile to one another, cannot either of them get rid of the other for what may be several years: & in any Continental European country the almost certain consequence of discord between the two authorities would be a coup d’état by the one which has troops under its command. There is nothing in Prim’s6 career which gives me the smallest confidence in his being, that rarity among Spanish politicians, a man of principle; & if he becomes President of a Spanish Republic it will be very likely with the full intention to take the first opportunity of playing the game of Napoleon the Third,7 after which Spain will be a Republic after the fashion of those of Spanish America,—a perpetual succession of military dictators each supplanting his predecessor by a pronunciamento or a civil war. That at least is my impression, grounded no doubt on very imperfect knowledge.

When, during your assiduous attendance at the election proceedings in Westminster, you spoke to me on the subject of an Association to claim for the working class electors the right to an equal voice in the selection of Edition: current; Page: [1543] Liberal candidates,2 I asked for time for consideration before I could give a positive opinion as to the present expediency of such an Association. The result of such consideration is, that I think the time is come for such a movement. The defeat of the working classes in the elections, and the subordinate position which has consequently been assigned to the men of advanced opinions in the formation of the government,3 have been so much noticed and commented on by friends and enemies, that neither the working classes themselves, nor their political allies, would be open to any fair accusation of causing dissension by acting upon a fact so universally recognised; but would rather be in danger of being supposed to acquiesce in it as right and necessary, if they did not make some demonstration against it. When I happen to be in correspondence with any organs of the working classes on political matters, I now make a point of inculcating on them the justice and expediency of standing out for the choice of one of the Liberal candidates when there are two seats, and for their claim to be consulted when there is only one.4 And I should be happy at once to join the Association proposed by you and your friends, whenever you are disposed to go on with the project. Only I should not like to be (as you proposed) President of the Society, in as much as, many of my personal friends being likely to be among its most active members, it would be supposed that it [had] been set going by me in order that by its means I might be reelected to Parliament; which would not be a desirable impression to give, either for the Society or for myself. I am

It would give me great pleasure if I were able to comply with the flattering request of the President of the Philomathic Society2 that I shd be present at the annual dinner of the Society & it is from no indifference to the kind feelings Edition: current; Page: [1544] of the members towards me, expressed in your letter, that I beg to be excused from accepting that honour. It is because I do not see my way to making a suitable return for it by delivering such an address on any subject of general interest as the Society is accustomed to hear from its invited guests on the occasion of its annual festivals without the employment of an amount of time & labour which I can ill spare from occupations on which I am now & shall be for some time engaged.

I have heard from Mrs Max Kyllmann in answer to the letter I wrote to her asking for a list of the names of those who subscribed the £120 to the Review at Mr Kyllmann’s request.2 She says that she should be very glad to send their names if she “thought it could be of any use to Dr Chapman to open communication with them; but, far from being friends of the Review, they none of them take interest in it, and they merely subscribed to oblige Mr Kyllmann, who had failed to obtain help in other quarters. Did I not know the difficulty my husband had at the time, I would gladly volunteer to raise subscriptions. I need not say that I shall seize every opportunity that may offer itself, and if a subscription of £5 can be of any good, I shall be very glad to hand it to Dr Chapman.”

I must beg you to excuse my delay in answering your letter, which has arisen from my great reluctance to answer in the negative2 and my desire Edition: current; Page: [1545] before doing so to consider well all the topics which it would be possible for me to take up, and the points of view from which they could be treated.3 I quite feel the force of your remark that to put forth opinions which at first startle people often stimulates & prepares their minds better than anything else that can be done. This is the principle I myself act upon, and [several illegible words] I think with some success last year in my proposals on the land question in Ireland,4 which while they were almost universally decried as violent & extreme have had the effect of making other proposals, up to that time considered extreme, be considered comparatively moderate & practicable.

Still it so happens that at the present juncture I can see no topic on which the public mind is sufficiently prepared to welcome anything I might have to say on which it is not already so far convinced that what I could say would be of little practical use; and it is not on such an occasion as this that one would like to put oneself in a position of antagonism to one’s listeners, and insist on enforcing what one cannot but feel to be unwelcome even if one is convinced that they are salutary truths.

Your great kindness, and that of the other gentlemen who have the management of the P.S. in being willing to put off if necessary their annual festivals till a later date than usual to suit my convenience makes me doubly reluctant to decline your kind invitation, and I hope that you and they will not ascribe it to a want of appreciation of so flattering a compliment but I feel myself compelled respectfully to decline their application.

The reason why I think that a miracle could not prove supernatural power to any one who did not already believe in the existence of Edition: current; Page: [1546] some such power,2 is this, that we never can know that any seeming miracle implies supernatural power. The achievement of apparently impossible results by strictly natural means is a fact not only within experience but within common experience. It is not even necessary to suppose the employment of a law of nature not previously discovered. It is sufficient to bear in mind the innumerable & truly wonderful exploits of jugglers, and, supernatural power not being proved by the miracle, a fortiori it would not be proof of a God.

If, however, any man possessed the apparent power of controlling not some particular laws of nature but all laws of nature—if he actually stopped the course of the sun, arrested the tides, changed the water of the sea instantaneously from salt to fresh, & so on without limit; then indeed he would prove by the direct testimony of sense that there existed a supernatural power & that he was possessed of it. The fact is that this would be an experience as complete as, & the exact counterpart of, that which we should have of creation if we had ocular demonstration of worlds similar to our own called into existence by a Will.

But if the apparently supernatural power only manifests itself in the seeming supersession of a limited number of natural laws, the hypothesis of its being done by means of other natural laws would be, as it seems to me, intrinsically so much more probable, that nothing but the proved impossibility of this could warrant the conclusion that the power was supernatural. And this proof of impossibility it is evident could never be obtained, in the existing or very probable future state of human knowledge.

A lady2 who has been exerting herself very much, and done a great deal, in the cause both of the education of women and of the agitation for the suffrage for women in Ireland, has lately published a novel, and has written to my daughter to ask her to use any influence she can to make it known. Knowing how kindly you are disposed to exert yourself in favour of new Edition: current; Page: [1547] writers, it occurs to us that if you think the work good, you would very likely be both able and willing to review it favourably in the Daily News or elsewhere, and so help to give it circulation.3 (Miss Robertson says that she scarcely knows any one connected with the press, but has always hitherto let her books take their own chance, yet has not fared very badly, her last novel, “The Story of Nelly Dillon” having got a long favourable review in the Athenaeum.)4

We have not yet read the work ourselves, but from what we know of Miss Robertson’s writings we should suppose it to be good, and it is certain that she is an industrious and public spirited writer. I have directed a copy of the novel in question (“Society in a Garrison Town”) to be sent to you. I am

I have to thank you again for one of your pleasant letters. I congratulate you on having brought your book2 to a happy termination & most heartily wish it the success with the public which I am sure it deserves. Your description of your feeling of recovered liberty after the completion of your book would seem to describe my feeling at having recovered the free disposal of my time. I also like you have a great arrear of miscellaneous reading to bring up, & this is not yet getting itself done very quickly in consequence of other arrears. The printer is making good progress with the Analysis3 & I hope to succeed in the attempt to get it published by or soon after the 1st of March. From what you say I hope to have read your book before that time. I have a good deal to read and study before I next revise my Pol Economy for another edition.4

Edition: current; Page: [1548]

What you say of Sir S. Northcote’s weakness of character, giving up good reasons of his own to bad ones of other people, explains to me much of his political life: how the more vigorous will of Sir C. Trevelyan kept him true to his convictions as to competitive examinations5 & how his honesty of purpose did not hinder him from going all lengths with Disraeli though Disraeli did not convince his reason. I do not know what sort of a Minister the D. of Argyll will turn out6 but I am glad you have not got Bright7 who would have had much to unlearn, & very little disposition to unlearn it. The two members of Council8 you mention are not good average specimens, having been selected by the old body out of their own number in consequence chiefly of their personal popularity, which was in itself not undeserved.

We are glad you share in our estimate of our terrace,9 which so far from being suppressed, has been nearly doubled in size, we having increased the part of the house of which it is the roof, & added a bath room thereto. Moreover Helen has carried out her long cherished scheme (about which she tells me she consulted you) of a “vibratory”10 for me, & has made a pleasant covered walk some 30 feet long where I can vibrate in cold or rainy weather. Edition: current; Page: [1549] The terrace, you must know, as it goes round two sides of the house, has got itself dubbed the “semi-circumgyratory.”11 In addition to this, Helen has built me a herbarium—a little room fitted up with closets for my plants, shelves for my botanical books, & a great table whereon to manipulate them all. Thus you see with my herbarium, my vibratory, & my semi-circumgyratory I am in clover & you may imagine with what scorn I think of the H. of C., which, comfortable club as it is said to be, could offer me none of these comforts, or more properly speaking these necessaries of life. Helen says your room is not finished yet, because as she is an architect & master mason all in one, she is carrying on the improvements very slowly, not letting the attention to them interfere too much with her other work. But you may be sure we have not altered the outward aspect of our dear little cottage, which looks as small as ever, & you may be equally sure that I am lost in wonder & admiration of the ingenuity with which Helen has contrived to manage it all. You will not be surprised to learn that among the other additions there is a Puss-House. Altogether we are very comfortable, & only wish everybody could be as comfortable as we are. The weather this year, though cloudy & wet, is still so delightfully mild that we can still spend hours upon the terrace.

I thank you for your pamphlet.2 It is truly a frightful consideration that the annual number of pupils who pass the highest grade in the schools aided by Govt, i.e. who leave the schools able to read a newspaper with understanding, is less than the number of teachers (including pupil teachers) employed in the schools. To remedy such a state of things as this requires a most earnest devotion of the administration & probably of the legislative mind to the purpose. There is no doubt that, as you say, a simplification of English orthography would facilitate considerably the task of learning to read. A language which like the Spanish of the present time has reduced its spelling to a perfectly uniform system has a great advantage over others. But it would take a much longer time to effect a change in orthography Edition: current; Page: [1550] than would be required to teach every child in the United Kingdom to read with facility. There certainly is no necessity that it should take “seven years of the best learning period of a child’s life” to teach him to read. So great a waste of time only proves the wretchedness of the teaching. I myself cannot remember any time when I could not read with facility & pleasure; & I have known other children with whom this was the case. Such essays as yours, however, do good, both by causing discussion, & by promoting useful though gradual change. The Commission you propose would be useful in a similar manner but the Govt may perhaps not think that a subject which does not come within the province of direct legislation is a suitable subject for a Government inquiry.3

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 21st ulto, proposing on the part of the American Social Science Association2 that I shd visit the United States as their guest, & make a lecturing tour through the Northern States under their auspices.

Few things could be more flattering to me than the high honour of such an invitation from such a body; & your letter also contains proposals of a pecuniary nature on such a scale of liberality as to convert a visit to the U.S. from an expensive pleasure into a source of great personal profit.3

The shortness, however, of life & the numerous unexecuted literary projects which the public duties on which the greater part of my life has been occupied have left on my hands, & which require all the leisure of my remaining Edition: current; Page: [1551] years for their fulfilment admonish me of the necessity of dividing such time as I am able to dispose of between those undertakings & a rest more complete than would be afforded by a journey such as that to which I am so flatteringly invited.

These are the considerations which compel me to decline an invitation so honourable, & which if I had more leisure & a greater number of years of life in prospect, would have been so welcome to me.

Allow me in conclusion to express to yourself personally my sincere acknowledgments of the friendly & courteous terms in which you have communicated to me the proposal of the Association.

I shd have answered your letter much earlier than this, but that ever since I received it I have been so indisposed with a bad cold & headache as to have been quite unable to write.

Like you we regret that your efforts to improve the Manchester Comee were not more successful, but what you have done may perhaps prove of use in the future.

Mr Mill & I are members of the London Comee & like the manner in which it is carried on, & have much confidence in Mrs Taylor.2 We are sorry that you see anything to object to in the form of petition used by the London Comee, because it was drawn up by myself & approved by Mr Mill before it was adopted. I do not think that if you examine it closely it will be found in any degree to prejudge the question of the admission of married women to the franchise. Mr Mill & I considered the wording of it carefully, & it was written with the intention of leaving that question open so that it could be signed both by those who do & by those who do not approve of the admission of married women. It was certainly not the intention of the London Comee to express any opinion on the point, or to petition for the unmarried only. If there is any defect in the wording, it is my fault, & Mr Mill’s (for we considered the wording of this paragraph together) but I do not think that if the words are well weighed with a precise attention to their meaning they will be found open to this objection. At all events we used what power we have over the English language to leave the question quite unsettled; & it was Edition: current; Page: [1552] on the assumption that we had been successful in doing so, that the London Comee adopted the form. We have found that some persons have refused to sign the petition on the contrary ground to yours, because they disapprove of the admission of married women.

The West. Review has been since its first establishment the organ of the most advanced radical party in England both as regards politics & religious speculation; & it was for a very long time the only organ in which anything of a very decidedly liberal character could appear in print, & is still the only one in which articles of its length can appear. It has been consistently of such (what are commonly called “extreme”) opinions that it has been impossible to obtain a sufficiently large circulation to make it profitable. It has often been carried on at a pecuniary loss, & it is still not without great difficulty that the editor is able to manage it. This of course it is not thought good for its interests to make publicly known, but it has been necessary on several occasions to have recourse to the friends (& unfortunately they are but few in England) of free speculation in politics & religion to tide over difficulties.3

We are very sorry to hear that your health is not good; we hope that your visit to Germany may prove beneficial. We expect to be in England by the middle of March, & shd be happy to see you at Blackheath if you do not start before then and if you shd pass through London on your way.

The three Essays which have been written this year for the Rectorial Prize are of a high average of merit, though no one of them shows powers of original thought quite equal to either of those to which the prize was awarded in the two previous years. The one which stands highest in this respect is that which bears the motto Quære verum and as its other merits are at least equal Edition: current; Page: [1553] to those of either of the others, I think it the most worthy of the Prize.2 But the inferiority of the other two Essays is not very great; and I should like to know the names of all the writers, as it would be a pleasure to me to communicate with them and to send them some of my Books. There is no part of my connexion with the University to which I look back with more satisfaction than the response which has been made to my attempt to co-operate with the University Authorities in encouraging a serious study of the Philosophy of Mind. I hope that they are as well satisfied as I am myself with the results which have been elicited.

I am much obliged to you for your kind present. You are right in thinking that my absence from Parliament will give me more time for botany. I am now looking through my herbarium for the first time since the winter of 1864/5. But the scientific interest of your book2 gives it a value to me beyond the purely botanical.

In regard to the Darwinian hypothesis,3 I occupy nearly the same position as you do. Darwin has found (to speak Newtonially) a vera causa, and has shewn that it is capable of accounting for vastly more than had been supposed: Edition: current; Page: [1554] beyond that, it is but the indication of what may have been, though it is not proved to be, the origin of the organic world we now see. I do not think it an objection that it does not, even hypothetically, resolve the question of the first origin of life: any more than it is an objection to chemistry that it cannot analyze beyond a certain number of simple or elementary substances.

Your remark that the development theory naturally leads to convergences as well as divergences4 is just, striking & as far as I know, has not been made before. But does not this very fact resolve one of your difficulties, viz. that species are not by divergence, multiplied to infinity? since the variety is kept down by frequent blending. The difficulty is also met by the fact that the law of natural selection must cause all forms to perish except those which are superior to others in power of keeping themselves alive in some circumstances actually realized on the earth. I am

I do not believe nor I fancy does any one in the present day except Mahometans & some other Orientals believe, that there is such a thing as destiny in the sense in which you understand it. The only necessity in events is, that causes produce effects, & means accomplish ends. Effects never come but through their causes. By avoiding, to the utmost of one’s power, all the causes of an effect, one greatly increases one’s chance of avoiding the effect. And if one desires an end, one greatly increases one’s chance of obtaining it by adopting some known means. It is true, what we desire sometimes comes to pass without any effort of ours, & what we dislike sometimes happens in spite of all we can do to avert it: but our conduct has on the average many times more effect on the fate of such of us as are not under the control of other people, than all other circumstances put together. There is no doubt that if you adopt a sailor’s life you have a greater chance of being drowned than in most other occupations, because the causes which operate in that direction occur oftener & are less (though still very much) under human control. It is not therefore by any argument founded on destiny that Edition: current; Page: [1555] you can hope to overcome the scruples of your parents but rather by urging that all occupations are exposed to some evil chances, that one may be too much afraid of death, & that if persons of good health & strength were to avoid a really useful employment like that of a sailor because of its dangers the world’s affairs could not be carried on.

I am much obliged to you for the opportunity of reading your reply to the criticisms of the writer in the North American Review.2 It supplies some very useful elucidations of your general doctrine, while it greatly increases my desire to know that as yet unpublished part of your speculations which in the scientific order would have come between “First Principles” and “Biology.” I have no doubt, however, that you judged wisely in giving precedence to Biology and Psychology.

I extremely regret that your health should again have failed, but I earnestly hope you will not allow any impatience at the interruption of your work to prevent you from giving your brain as complete rest as is necessary to restore its tone. I am dear Mr. Spencer

I certainly do think your original plan of municipal government for London,2 preferable to that of a single municipal government for the Edition: current; Page: [1556] whole metropolis. When I first heard of your plan it at once struck me as that which best met the real difficulties of the case while it had also the advantage of being less open to unreasonable as well as reasonable objections: this opinion has been confirmed by the additional consideration which since the receipt of your letter I have given to it. I will endeavour to put down what occurs to me, for any use you like to make of it except sending it to the press. I rather regretted that you published the letter I sent you about police,3 not that there was anything in its substance that I could wish to withhold from publicity, but because in a mere memorandum for a friend, with whom one agrees generally in opinion, intended to be used by him for what it may be worth as materials for forming his own judgment, the same things are said in a different manner from that in which one would address the public. Accordingly, though you used the precaution of stating that the letter was to a private friend, the newspapers took no notice of that, but judged the letter exactly as if it had been written for the public, & charged it with dogmatism, arrogance, & what not. These accusations are not a very great evil, but there are so many purposes for which one is bound to risk them that it is better not to court such occasions unnecessarily and in the case of the letter I am now writing there are special reasons against communicating it to those who are not to be taken into practical council, which will appear in the very first things I have to say.

It is to my mind certain that Parliament will not tolerate the existence in its immediate vicinity of another assembly resting on a broad basis of popular election, wielding the power & disposing of the great amount of revenue which would belong to a single body carrying on every branch of local administration for the whole of London. The idea excited would be that of the “Commune de Paris” during the Revolution. If therefore the plan adopted is that of a single assembly, one of two things will happen. Either, first, the power of the body will be extremely curtailed. This may be done in one or both of two ways: by leaving much of the administration in the hands of the parochial bodies, the vestries & local boards, whom it is a great object to extirpate, root & branch; or by withholding many of the most important parts of the local administration from the Council, & either leaving those parts in their present state of general neglect varied by fitful parliamentary activity, or turning them over to a department of the central government. These are modes in which the powers of the municipal body may be brought within what Parliament would tolerate. The other course which may be adopted is that of spoiling its constitution: either by adopting a high electoral qualification, or by joining to the elected members a certain number of members nominated by the government, or by making the assent of a Minister necessary to their more important acts. All these systems would be more intolerable to you & me & to most of those who think with us on general politics than Edition: current; Page: [1557] even the present irregularity & want of system, & would be far more likely to last. These prudential reasons should, I think, prevent our friends from encouraging, or consenting to support, any plan for a single municipality.

But even in itself, a single municipality in so enormous a city seems to me unlikely to work well. There is far too much work to be done; the mass of details affecting only particular neighbourhoods, would leave too little time or energy to the council for maturing & carrying out general plans of improvement, and would, moreover, require it to be more numerous than is quite consistent with that purpose. Those who hold up as an example the local administration of Paris do not know what that administration is. Letting alone the fact that every single person connected with it is a Government nominee, it is not the fact that all Paris is under a single municipal administration; there is indeed but one Council, but there are 20 mayors, each of whom administers one of the 20 arrondissements. It is as much a double administration as that which would be given by our two bills, except that England being a free country, our mayors must have councils, and popularly elected ones, to assist & control them. I confess also I shd not like to restrict to a single popular body all that exercise of the business faculties on public concerns which does take place under the present local institutions with all their imperfections & which in England, & still more in America trains many men of no great ability or reach of thought to be quite capable of discharging important public functions & of watching & controlling their discharge by others. This is one of the great differences between free & unfree countries—practical intelligence in public affairs not confined to the government & its functionaries but diffused among private citizens. Our Vestries are bad schools, but yet those who organize public movements & bring the people of the locality to act together for one object, have mostly gained their first experience in the capacity of vestrymen & it might easily happen that the too great concentration of municipal action might leave London without a sufficient number of such persons.

I have read your first letter in the Economist2 with great pleasure & your paper on La Creuse3 with much interest & instruction. Edition: current; Page: [1558] It is very important to put such points as it contains before the conceited Englishmen who fancy they understand all that relates to the land & politics of France when they do not know the first rudiments of it, much less the many important matters you discuss. I look forward with great expectation to the other papers which you announce as in prospect,4 & shall not fail to weigh well what they say on political economy.

Many thanks for the trouble you have taken for M. Chauffard’s Mittermaier.5 I agree with you in going the complete length with Bentham as to the admissibility of evidence.6 There are I believe frequent cases like that you mention, of practical mischief both to the accused & to others from his not being examined as a witness. The one point on which alone B seems to me to be wrong is in allowing the judge to interrogate. But I have recently seen it stated that the prodigious abuse of this power which takes place in France, is in part owing to the fact that men are almost always made judges from having been public prosecutors, i.e. persons the whole business of whom it has been to find evidence of guilt: & not as with us from among barristers who have equally often had the duty of finding evidence of innocence. The reason is that the salaries of judges are not worth the acceptance of an advocate in good practice, & the salaries are small because in France there are everywhere courts of five judges or more where a much smaller number & in general one judge would suffice: thus does a single error in a system engender a series of others.

The physical illustrations in my Logic7 were all reviewed & many of them suggested by Bain, who has a very extensive & accurate knowledge of physical science. He has promised me to revise them thoroughly for the next edition,8 & to put them sufficiently in harmony with the progress of science, which I am quite aware that they have fallen behind.

Your letter & the proposed address enclosed in it, reached me several days after the meeting to which you invited me.2

I do not think I could go to the full length of what is claimed in the address. I am very doubtful if the Govt ought to release all who may lie in prison for being connected for instance with the Clerkenwell outrage,3 or for having joined in the Fenian invasion of Canada.4 To those political prisoners who have shed no blood, or have shed it in the way of what may be called fair or legitimate insurrection on Irish soil I would, simultaneously with a fresh act of justice to Ireland, grant a full pardon with a public declaration that it is done from the hope that the willingness practically shewn to redress Irish injuries by legislation would induce the Irish in future to seek for redress only in that way & would thus render legal punishment unnecessary: But in rebellion as in war it seems to me that a distinction shd be made between fair weapons or modes of warfare & foul ones. And a good deal of thought would be required to decide exactly where the line should be drawn.

Ever since reading your book,2 which a variety of occupations prevented me from doing until very lately, I have felt desirous of expressing to you the very high sense I entertain of its merits, and the great Edition: current; Page: [1560] pleasure which, as one who has turned much of his attention to the same subjects, I have felt at seeing such a number of sound judgments and such a sustained tone of right and worthy feeling, sent forth to the world in a style so likely to command attention, and by one who has now the additional vantage-ground of a seat in Parliament. It is long since any book, connected with practical politics, has been published, on which I build such high hopes of the future usefulness and distinction of the writer; showing as it does that he not only possesses a most unusual amount of real knowledge on many of the principal questions of the future, but a mind strongly predisposed to what are (at least in my opinion) the most advanced and enlightened views of them.

There are so few opinions expressed in any part of your book with which I do not, as far as my knowledge extends, fully and heartily coincide, that I feel impelled to take the liberty of noting the small number of points, of any consequence, on which I differ from you. These relate chiefly to India; though, on that subject also, I agree with you to a much greater extent than I differ. Not only do I most cordially sympathize with all you say about the insolence of the English, even in India, to the native population, which has now become, not only a disgrace, but, as you have so usefully shown, a danger to our dominion there; but I have been much struck by the sagacity which, in so short a stay as yours must have been, has enabled you to detect facts which are as yet obvious to very few: as, for instance, the immense increase of all the evils and dangers you have pointed out, by the substitution of the Queen’s army for a local force of which both men and officers had at least a comparatively permanent tie in the country; and again, that the superior authority in England, having the records of all the Presidencies before it, and corresponding regularly with them all, is the only authority which really knows India; the local governments and officers only knowing, at most, their own part of it, and having generally strong prejudices in favour of the peculiarities of the system of government there adopted and against those of the other parts. I observe that your preferences seem to be, as mine are, for the systems which give permanent rights of property to the actual cultivator, which is best done in the modern Bombay ryot-war system. I am sorry to say that there is at present a strong reaction in favour of setting up landlords everywhere,3 and what is worst, I am told, that this prevails most among the younger men (the hide-bound Toryism of Sir William Mansfield assisting); and there is great mischief of this kind in progress both in the Punjab and in the Central Provinces, notwithstanding the contrary predilections of Sir John Lawrence. What will happen under the Irish landlord who is now Viceroy,4 I dread to think.

Edition: current; Page: [1561]

But have you not, on the questions which concern the English planters, leant too much to their side? You have yourself stigmatized their treatment of the natives; and what better can be expected in a country where a station master kicks and cuffs the passengers and a captain of a steamer kicks the pilot round the deck whenever the vessel runs aground?5 If it could be right to make the breach of a contract to labour for the planters, under habitual treatment of this sort from them and their low nigger-drivers, a penal offence, the evil could not be so flagrant as your book shews it to be, and as it undoubtedly is: Another thing to be considered is that either a most unjust advantage would be given to European over native landholders and employers of labour, or the same legal remedy must be granted to both; and I suppose, even those who think that an English indigo planter and his underlings would not suborn witnesses to depose falsely in a criminal court, will admit that a native landowner would.

In your plan for the improvement of the organ of Indian government in England, you shew a just and enlightened appreciation of the necessity of making the organ a permanent one, in the sense of not going out with the Ministry. But this will not, and cannot be, if the organ is a Secretary of State, or any member of the Cabinet. No one who does not go out when the majority in Parliament changes, will, or ought to have a voice in the Cabinet which decides the general policy of the country. Neither is it likely to be thought right, nor indeed would it be right, that the Government of the empire should have no voice, not even a negative one, in the administration of its greatest dependency. If, then, the head administrator of India were not to be in the Cabinet, we should find that a Cabinet minister would be set over him to control him, as one was set to control the Court of Directors: and the nominal administrator, being only one person, and that one of inferior official rank, would have no power of resistance and would sink into a mere deputy. Would this be any improvement? I have always myself thought that a Board or Council for India, with a Cabinet minister to control them but not to sit among them, was the really best system for India: and I have given my reasons for this in the concluding chapter of my book on Representative Government.6 It is, however, impracticable to go back to this: and under the present system I think your own opinions will lead you to the conclusion that the Secretary of State must necessarily change with the Government and that the real knowledge of India which you hope to obtain in him by making him permanent, can only be found in a Council of advisers with at least as great powers as the present Council. It is quite another question whether the Council ought not to be more rapidly renewed. I am much disposed to think with you that its members should only be appointed (and should, exceptis excipiendis, only hold their seats) for five years: but, I think, they ought to Edition: current; Page: [1562] be fully as numerous as at present, that all the different systems of administration in India may have somebody there who knows them well enough and has sufficient sympathy with them to correct any misunderstanding to their advantage.

You suggest that we should issue a proclamation declaring that for the future we will “invariably recognize the practice of adoption of children by the native rulers, as we have done in the case of the Mysore succession.”7 But this is what was actually done by Lord Canning’s famous Proclamation:8 and the hesitation about Mysore only arose from a doubt whether the great peculiarities of that case did not afford to those who disliked the Proclamation, some ground for contending that to that particular ruler (or nominal ruler) our faith was not pledged: It is a significant fact that not a single native ruler, with the doubtful exception of Dharwar, and the certain one of a few Delhi Jagendars to whom had been granted some amount of independent jurisdiction, went against us in the mutiny.9 The Hyderabad State did us real service by standing by us. The native princes are much more influenced by fear of anarchy, and of possible Sivajees10 and Hyder Ali’s,11 than by dislike of us.

I have noticed a few minor inaccuracies of fact on Indian matters; surprisingly few, considering all the circumstances. You say that the Persians and Afghans are Sheeahs, while our own Mussulmans are orthodox.12 The Afghans, unless my memory totally deceives me, are firm Soonees, the only Sheeahs in Afghanistan being the Kuzzilbashes, i.e. the Persian traders and settlers. Again, there are a good many Sheeahs in India, and I even think that the royal family of Oude were so.

It is rather harsh to call the Bengalees (p. 366) mere savages. As you doubtless know that some of them are the most cultivated of all the Hindoos, I conjecture that the Bengalees you mean are the Southals, or the wilder Garrows, Kookees, &c. and “the tribes of Central India” in the same passage are the Goands, Coles and other Aborigines. “Central India” includes the large province of Nagpore, or Berar, and the Sanger and Nerbuddo districts formerly attached to it; territories as popular, peaceable, and highly cultivated as most parts of India.

The working of the system of native assessors in courts of justice I only know practically in the case of the criminal international tribunals we have established in many districts—and in which the assessors are persons of some Edition: current; Page: [1563] consequence: and there, having reviewed hundreds of the trials, I can testify that their opinion is often given against that of the presiding British officer, and that he shews considerable practical deference to it, especially as to the amount of punishment, for the sake of reconciling the native chiefs to these tribunals.

I was puzzled when I came, at p. 382, to the assertion, that “Switzerland is the home of the worst of bigotry and intolerance.” This is quite contrary to my impression of the religious condition of Switzerland.

You see that in order to find fault with anything, I have very soon got down to extremely small points, or to such as have very little to do with the general scope of the work. If there is any criticism of a somewhat broader character that I could make, I think it would be this—that (in speaking of the physical and moral characteristics of the populations descended from the English) you sometimes express yourself almost as if there were no sources of national character but race and climate—as if whatever does not come from race must come from climate, and whatever does not come from climate must come from race. But as you shew, in many parts of your book, a strong sense of the good and bad influences of education, legislation, and social circumstances, the only inference I draw is that you do not, perhaps, go so far as I do myself in believing these last causes to be of prodigiously greater efficacy than either race or climate or the two combined.

Thanking you most sincerely for the great pleasure and the very valuable information I have received from your book, I am

When your letter reached me, I happened to be particularly busy, and some days elapsed before I had time to read the article of which you forwarded to me a proof. My opinion of the article is such as it would be very painful to me to express to a writer your account of whom excites so much personal sympathy, and whose errors, if they be so, are on the side of Edition: current; Page: [1564] Liberty; but I differ so completely from the practical conclusions of the article, not only on the points you mention but on almost every other, and a great proportion of its arguments both when I do not, and in the few cases in which I do agree with it, seem to me so weak and shallow, that I should regret to see the Westminster Review identifying itself with the writer’s opinions. A review in which the writers assumed the sole responsibility of their articles by affixing their signatures, would be in a rather different position. The Westminster used to have a department for articles which it thought worthy of publication without wishing to commit the Review to any greater degree of approval. Would it not be possible to put the article into that department?2

Respecting the French system of relief of the poor,3 what inaccuracy there is in the statements of the article is in saying that the French government “leaves the relief of the poor to private benevolence.” The poor have in France no legal right to relief, nor is relief granted (any more than in England) directly by the State; but very large sums, raised by taxation, are annually granted by the municipal councils, which are not, as in England, confined to a few towns, but cover the whole country; and these bodies also undertake the expenditure of sums contributed for the purpose by individuals. That the French poor are ‘quite as well if not better off than in England’ is difficult either to prove or disprove: the question has too many meanings, and requires consideration of so many circumstances. But if they are better off, it certainly is not for the reason alleged, for the public and private charity of France has precisely the same demoralizing effects as an ill administered poor law.

Your idea respecting Mr Peabody4 is good. I think the best mode of carrying it out would be to endeavour to interest him in the position of the Review without making a direct application for money, as he must be so overwhelmed with the number of such applications that his spontaneous impulse must always be to reject them. I am not acquainted with Mr Peabody, and cannot give an introduction to him; but one of my friends and correspondents at New York. Mr Brace5 (whom perhaps you know) seems to me a likely person to be able to judge in what manner it may be best to approach him; and, if you approve, I will advise with Mr Brace on the subject.

With regard to the new edition of my father’s Analysis,6 there is, forunately Edition: current; Page: [1565] for the book, but unfortunately for the Review, a serious obstacle to Mr Grote’s writing a review of it, namely that he is himself the author of some of the notes. I should have no difficulty in getting the sheets beforehand, and the book itself will, I hope, be published very early in March.7

If my letter gave you pleasure, yours has repaid it, not merely by the good part in which you have taken my criticisms, but because it contains things which confirm the best points of the conception I had formed of you from your book. What you call a “traveller’s trick” of gathering information from prejudiced and interested persons on both sides of every question is a trick which I wish many travellers would imitate, for it is simply the only way to form even an approximate judgment of the truth. But this mode of enquiry though the only one which brings out the most precious materials of knowledge, very much disturbs the process of adopting opinions ready made.

My object, however, in writing, is not to say this, but to express the pleasure it will give me to see you when I return to England, which will be in the course of next month, and to answer, as well as I can, your question about Tocqueville’s manuscripts.2 The person who is sure to possess full information about them and who probably has them in his charge is M. Ch. Revel,3 ancien Conseiller d’Etat whose address when I last corresponded with him (which however was several years ago) was 8 Rue du Marché d’Aguesseau, Edition: current; Page: [1566] Paris. Or you might apply to the publisher of the collected edition of Tocqueville’s Works,4 Michel Lévy,5 Rue Vivienne.

I have lately received communication from the American publisher Putnam,2 requesting me to write for their Magazine, and I understand that they would be very glad if you would write anything for them, more especially on the Women question,3 on which the Magazine (a new one) has shown liberal tendencies from the first. The communications I have received have been through Mrs. Hooker,4 sister of Mrs. Stowe5 and Dr. Ward Beecher,6 and herself the author of two excellent articles in the Magazine on the suffrage question,7 by which we had been much struck before we knew the authorship. I enclose Mrs. Hooker’s last letter to me, and I send by post copies of Mrs. Hooker’s articles and some old numbers of the Magazine, the only ones we have here; and I shall be very happy if I should be the medium of inducing you to write on this question for the American public.

My daughter desires to be kindly remembered, and I am,

Dear Miss Cobbe, very truly yours,

J. S. Mill

P.S.—May I ask you to be so kind as to forward Mrs. Hooker’s letter to Mrs. P. A. Taylor, as she will see by it that Mrs. Hooker has no objection to put her name to a reprint of her articles.

The mode in which Convergence2 seems to me to combine itself with divergence in the generation of species, resembles what happens in the growth of a tree. The shoots from one of the larger branches approach & meet those from another, so that a large part of the growth of both is in the direction contrary to divergence, while yet the general circumference constantly enlarges, so that divergence, though limited by the counter-principle is yet in respect of the distance between its extremes, perpetually widening.

I do not understand that when Darwin adopted as his title “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” he meant by “origin of species” the cause of there being any species, or any diversity in organic nature. He seems to me to mean what you mean by the Formation of Species,3 viz. the origin of the species which now exist on the earth.

But I have not yet read, though I hope soon to have time to read, his latest & longest work.4

Want of time has prevented me from immediately answering or acknowledging your letter of Jan 31; but you must not suppose, when this is the case, Edition: current; Page: [1568] that I overlook your letters or that they are not both interesting and useful to me.

I have not forgotten the list of books which you wished for; but hitherto when I have seen one of them in a bookseller’s catalogue and have had time to go for it (not liking to buy a book without seeing it) I have found it gone. I may be more successful now, when my time will not be occupied by Parliament. It is unlucky that all the books you ask for the loan of, are books that I have not got. I wish there were any good history of the period you mention in England. Some portions of that period have been written about, but I do not know what books to recommend.

I am not acquainted with the letter you mention of Mr. Odger;2 but though he may have made an occasional mistake of judgment, I have a very high opinion of him both as to intentions and intelligence. Mr. Hartwell3 was not one of those working men whose candidature I helped though I was asked to do so: but though I myself knew nothing to his disadvantage, I had not evidence in his favour, as I had in the other cases. With regard to yourself, I have now had considerable means of judging of you from your letters, and as far as those means extend I should certainly say that you are one of the working men whom I should be glad to see in Parliament.

I am afraid, however, we should differ about the Factory Laws; though I doubt not that there are points in their working which require to be looked to, and probably defects which you would be able to point out. You seem, however, to object to their principle when you say they imply “either that the English manufacturer is of such a grasping spirit that he must needs be curbed lest he should overwork the juvenile portion of his employes as to deteriorate the population of the country; or, on the other hand, that the English parent is so needy or sordidly ignorant or brutishly cruel that he may not be trusted with the care and welfare of his own children, but that the State must undertake these duties for him.” Of the two things which you thus put alternatively, I believe both to be true: not, of course, true in all cases, or up to any extreme, but true to a sufficient extent and of a sufficient number to make it disastrous to leave the children, without legal protection, to the mere discretion of any kind of parents and any kind of employers of labour.

With regard to Boards of Arbitration, I do not as far as I am able to judge of the subject, think it possible to constitute an authority sufficiently capable, sufficiently trustworthy, or sufficiently likely to be trusted by both sides, to Edition: current; Page: [1569] make it at all admissable that their award should be legally obligatory, unless the two parties to the dispute have beforehand voluntarily agreed to be bound by it. In this case they should of course be held to their pledge.

I am, however, so much occupied, that I have not time to write out my ideas on either of these subjects, and am forced to be content with a brief indication of them, which I do not wish published. I am

I am of the opinion that every kind of effort, whether social or political, in favour of women should be encouraged, so long as it is honest and genuine; and I am persuaded that those who are in earnest will inevitably be led by experience to see the absolute necessity of political enfranchisement as both the foundation and the safeguard of human worth and happiness.

I have delayed answering your letter until I could tell you that the book on “The Subjection of Women” has gone to press. Mr Longman is apprised that Messrs Appleton accept his terms for this work, & he will make the necessary arrangements with their London agent respecting the plates &c.2 It will rest with Messrs Appleton to authorize the publication of any extracts in anticipation in the Journal.3 To me it cannot be otherwise than agreeable. The book will be published in London some time in May.4

Edition: current; Page: [1570]

I inclose in the form of a short letter to yourself,5 what you wished me to write on the subject of Mr Herbert Spencer’s works.

You ask my opinion concerning Mr Spencer’s “First Principles” & “Principles of Biology” as contributions to the advance of thought.2 I answer that I attach to them, in that respect, the very highest value. I am the more completely disinterested in this high estimation of them, as their line of investigation is extremely different & remote from my own, & I am far from being prepared (I do not know if Mr Spencer himself is prepared) to consider the long series of his conclusions as definitively proved. Still, it is not solely as a wonderful exhibition of connected & systematic thought, that these works appear to me worthy of admiration. They seem to me to hold a most important place in the scientific thought of the age. Within the present generation several large & comprehensive generalizations have made their way into Science—the Unity & Conservation of Force, the Darwinian theory of organic development, & (though this is rather a branch of the last) the hereditary transmission of acquired faculties. All these theories rest, in part, on well ascertained facts, while all of them, even the first, & much more the two others still remain hypothetical as to a great part of the extent & the application claimed for them. At this critical period in what will probably turn out to be one of the great transformations in Science, nothing could be more fortunate than that some person, with faculties so peculiarly adapted to the purpose as Mr Spencer’s shd have taken up the explanation of Nature on the new principles synthetically, setting out from them as true, & working out in detail what sort of an explanation they are capable of affording of the complicated world in which we live. Until this attempt was made, the theories in question, considered as universal laws of nature, could be neither verified nor disproved. And arduous as the attempt is, no one who studies these works of Mr Spencer is likely to deny that it has been made by a mind equal to it, & that it will mark a step in the progress of thought even if posterity should pronounce it (which I certainly do not expect) to be a splendid failure. Of Mr Spencer’s other writings it is unnecessary at present to say more than that I consider the contributions made to the analytic study of the human mind by the “Principles of Psychology” alone an ample foundation for a distinguished philosophical reputation.

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 8th ultimo, with its inclosures respecting a plan for systematic emigration to Canada. The time is very favourable for the reception of such a plan in this country, as attention has of late been called in an unusual degree to the miserable state of the English agricultural laborers, and to the possibility of making emigration available for their relief; and Mr. Goschen,2 the new President of the Poor Law Board, has declared in Parliament that the subject is under his consideration, with a view, however, to the United States rather than to Canada.3

It would be highly desirable that the promoters of your plan should enter into direct communication with Mr. Goschen, and that he should be enabled as soon as possible to judge what amount of assistance the Canadian Government may be willing to offer toward the cost of the emigration.

It gives me great pleasure to cooperate with you in so useful a project.2 My daughter Miss Helen Taylor, and I, request that we may be put down as Edition: current; Page: [1572] members, and I inclose our subscriptions for the first year and a donation of £5.

If you are disengaged on Sunday next, will you give us the pleasure of taking an early dinner with us at five? There is a North Kent train from Charing Cross at 4.5, and my house is about ten minutes walk from the Blackheath station at the extreme further end (the last house but one) in Blackheath Park. I am

Immediately on receiving your letter of January 19, I wrote to Sir Charles Trevelyan, who is the principal author of Competitive Examination as applied to the Civil Service in England and India.2 He at once undertook to write to you, and to furnish you with all the information in his power, and I presume he has done so before this time. The question seems to me, if possible, even more important in the United States than in this country. I have long thought that the appointments to office, without regard to qualifications, are the worst side of American institutions: the main cause of what is justly complained of in their practical operation, and the principal hindrance to the correction of what is amiss; as well as a cause of ill-repute to democratic institutions all over the world. If appointments were given, not by political influence, but by open competition, the practice of turning out the holders of office, at every change in politics, in order to reward partisans, would necessarily cease, and with it nearly all the corruption and the larger half of the virulence of mere party conflict. I have been delighted to see that Mr. Jenckes’ measure3 meets with increasing support from disinterested Edition: current; Page: [1573] opinion, though it will have to encounter the utmost hostility from the professional politicians who are the great perverters of free government. . . .

Dr Youmans probably thought (as I did myself) that time did not allow of making any arrangement for the Analysis. But he hopes to do so for any of my future writings & he has no objection to your conditions.2

You are a much better judge than I can be of what publication it is advisable to send copies to. Only I should recommend adding the Revue des Deux Mondes, and I wish two copies each instead of one to be sent to Mr Bain, Mr Findlater & Mr Grote; at my expense if necessary. I inclose an additional list of persons & public bodies to whom I wish presentation copies to be sent on my account.

I was not aware that you were waiting for instructions as to the payment of the balance into Prescott’s3 but I will attend to the matter in future.

I send today by book post to your address, the three Essays which competed for this year’s prize.2 Would you kindly inform me whether books addressed simply at the University of St Andrews, would reach the writers?

I have directed Messrs Longman to send you a copy of the new edition of my father’s “Analysis” of which I beg your acceptance, and also a copy to Edition: current; Page: [1574] the University. I wish to send copies to the gentlemen who gained the previous year’s prizes, but I have unluckily mislaid the address of Mr. Stewart. I should be much obliged to you if you would kindly send it to me. I am

Your letter reached Avignon after I had left for England, but has followed me here. In reply I beg to say that you are free to make unrestricted use of my former letter,2 and it would give me much pleasure to hear of your success.

Would it suit the “Edinburgh Review” to take an article from me on Mr. Thornton’s book on Labour?2 The book is of great ability; and, though there Edition: current; Page: [1575] is much of it with which I do not agree, I think it a really important contribution to political economy, as well as to the particular subject of which it treats. My object would be to recommend the book to the consideration of thinkers, pointing out at the same time how far, and in what, I think it erroneous; which is chiefly in some of its premises, for I agree generally in its conclusions, respecting trades-unions, co-operation, and the ultimate future of labour.

The National Society for Women’s Suffrage has decided to try to get up a petition to Parliament this year from every borough in England in favour of Women’s Suffrage,2 to be sent up to one of the members for each borough. The Society has found friends and correspondents in all but about ninety boroughs, and a list of these ninety has been sent to my daughter that she may endeavour to find friends in some of them who will interest themselves in getting signatures to a petition. Among these boroughs which the Society has as yet no correspondents is Stoke upon Trent, and remembering the interest you expressed in the subject last year, my daughter has asked me to ask you if you will take up the matter. What is wanted is simply to give away copies of the pamphlets circulated by the Society, to such people as you think will be influenced by them or who will give them away in turn among their friends, and to solicit signatures to the petition as widely as possible, giving a copy of the petition to be filled in with signatures to everybody who you think will be willing to interest him or herself in getting it filled. There is no need that the petition should be sent up for two or three months, so that there is time to get in plenty of signatures, and the London Society will be happy to send down any number of pamphlets, circulars, and printed copies Edition: current; Page: [1576] of the petition for signature. We forward by this post some copies of all of these, and if your Mother and yourself will in this manner procure a petition, even if it be not numerously signed it will be rendering a useful service to this great cause. I am

I shall have much pleasure in writing a notice of Mr. Thornton’s book for the “Edinburgh Review,”2 and shall, of course, put what I have to say in a form somewhat different from that in which I should write for another publication. My own point of view does not exactly coincide either with that of Mr. Thornton or with that of the “Edinburgh” Reviewer to whom he refers;3 and, of course, I must be free to express my own view, and that only. Mr. Thornton is certainly a defender of trades-unions, to the extent of thinking that their existence is an important defence and protection to the operatives, and that they often cause a rise of wages when, though right and desirable, it would not otherwise have taken place. On these points, I think, Mr. Thornton has fully made out his case. On the other hand, he condemns some of the aims and rules of trades-unions; and is quite alive to their liability to carry their legitimate aims (rise of wages and diminished hours of work) to a length which may injure both themselves and their employers by driving the trade elsewhere. For the correction of this evil he looks to the lessons of experience and increased intelligence, and to amiable discussion between the parties. In these various opinions I entirely agree, and I should feel bound to express them in anything I write on the subject. It is for you to decide whether they would be unsuitable for publication in the “E. Review.”

Edition: current; Page: [1577]

With regard to your suggestion for reviewing the Report of the Commission,4 do you purpose that this should be done in the same or in a separate article? Since, in that case, it would be necessary to express an opinion on the question of prohibiting by law those employments of trades-union funds which may be decided to be illegitimate; and, moreover, of giving efficacy to the legal prohibition by the appointment of a public prosecutor expressly for its enforcement. These are very grave questions, and I am not yet prepared to give a final opinion on every part of them, though I am clearly against adopting some of the recommendations of the majority of the Commission, as reported in to-day’s papers.5 I think that the systematic enforcement of legal penalties against strikes, even for undesirable objects, would be the commencement of a feud between employers and workmen, and between workmen and the Government, more internecine than we have ever yet seen.

If you are in town at Easter, I should be very glad to see you, if you would like to come down and dine with me on Easter Sunday. I dine at five, and there is a train by the North Kent railway from Charing Cross at 4.5. My house (the last but one at the further end of Blackheath Park) is about ten minutes walk from the Blackheath station.

Or I shall be here either of the two following Sundays April 4 and 11, and should be happy to see you on either day, either in the morning or to a five o’clock dinner; but after that, I am returning to Avignon for a month or two.

I have considerable difficulty in judging from outside of any question of political tactics, during the present transitional state of politics. And the questions you put to me are essentially questions of tactics;2 for, on the substantial issues, there can hardly be any difference of opinion. The landlords undoubtedly get what they have no right to; for though they are charged a fair price for the tithe, the State, in one sense of the word, pays that price for them, by lending them money at a much lower rate than they themselves can borrow at; just as it lends them its money or credit for the improvement of their land. Thus it undoubtedly makes a present to them; but as that present costs itself nothing, consisting only in giving them the benefit of its better credit, the Government may be right, as a matter of tactics, in granting them this advantage, which costs nothing to anybody. Again, to employ the resumed national property, or a part of it, in education, would be a far better Edition: current; Page: [1580] application of it than the one proposed; but the measure would then no longer tend to a reconcilement of religious differences. The application of any of the money to the Queen’s Colleges or to undenominational schools, would be vehemently opposed by the whole Catholic party. The battle of unsectarian education will have to be fought, but we may hope to fight it with better support if this measure has first passed, retaining completely the character of a healing measure. It seems to me too that Ireland has a just claim on the general taxation of the empire for all that it requires in the way of education: and inasmuch as unsectarian education is contrary to the wish of the great majority of the Irish people, that at least can with much greater propriety be charged upon general taxation, than upon a fund belonging to Ireland, as the Church property does. What can be said on the other side of both these points will occur to yourself; and I am by no means against criticising these provisions of the Bill in a speech. With regard to any directly hostile movement against them (which would certainly be unsuccessful) I doubt if any advantage would arise from it equivalent to the bad effect of an apparent want of unanimity in the Liberal party in carrying through this measure. I do not feel able to give a more positive opinion on the subject.

My daughter desires to be kindly remembered to Mrs Fawcett and yourself, and I am

The idea of an Academy of Moral & Political Science has often presented itself to my mind; as it could hardly fail to present itself to any one who has been all his life speculating & thinking on social questions & who has studied the institutions and ideas of foreign countries. But the result of the thought I have given to the subject, has always been unfavourable.

Edition: current; Page: [1581]

The Society, or Academy, would either be a public body, or a mere private association. If a public body, the original members would be named by the Government; subsequent vacancies might be filled up, as in France, by the votes of the body itself. If the Govt acted honestly in the matter, which we will suppose it to do, it would appoint the persons of highest reputation as writers or thinkers on moral, social, & political subjects without (it is to be hoped) any regard to their opinions; for to pay any regard to these would simply mean to exclude all whose opinions were in advance of the age. This then being supposed, what sort of a body would be the result? An assemblage of persons of utterly irreconcilable opinions, who would hardly ever be sufficiently unanimous on any question to exercise, as a body, any moral or intellectual influence over it; while amidst this medley of opinions there would be an assured majority in favour of what is conservative & commonplace, because such is invariably the tendency of the majority of those whose reputation is already made. In consequence, the subsequent elections by the members, to fill vacancies, would be decidedly worse than we are supposing the original choice to be; for men of the highest eminence would often not be elected if any of their opinions were obnoxious to the arriéré majority. Guizot,2 Thiers,3 & Cousin4 while he lived, ruled the French Academy of Moral & Political Sciences & very few who were not of their opinions were, or now are, admitted into it.5 The Académie Française rejected Littré,6 the man who by his single efforts was doing admirably the whole work which the Academy was specially appointed to do. Even Academies of physical science in which there is less difference of opinions, always consist, in majority, of trained mediocrities, while the men whose footsteps mark the great advances in science often do not succeed during their whole lives in obtaining admission. Originality, scientific genius, is in general looked shyly upon by the majority of scientific men; & it is of the majority that Academies, however honestly constituted, will be the representatives.

If, on the other hand, the Society was not a public organised body, but was composed of volunteers rallying round some common standard, it would not materially differ from any voluntary association of persons agreeing in some of their opinions & would carry no more weight than any other set of men who unite to assist and back one another in the propagation of their particular doctrines.

It does not seem to me possible by any combination, to make the collective force of scientific thought available as a power in social affairs. The French Edition: current; Page: [1582] Academies never have been such a power: the Academy of Moral & Political Sciences is neither consulted, nor, as a body, puts forth any opinions, or exercises any moral or political action, except by offering prizes for Essays. Its Transactions, consisting of the papers read before it, are published, but one seldom sees them quoted or referred to. Its individual members have such influence as their talents or character may give them, but collective influence it has none.

Having given you the reasons which make me fear that the results you anticipate from the formation of an Academy of M. & P.S. would not be realised, allow me now to express the great pleasure which our short conversation gave me & the satisfaction I should have in cooperating with you on the subject of the Alabama claims7 & I doubt not, on many other important matters. There is such a lack of energy & earnestness in all classes above manual labourers, & those who have any wish or capacity for improved ideas are so shrinkingly afraid of what will be said of them & so daunted by the smallest obstacle that it is a dies albo notandus8 on which one meets with any man of intelligence who feels and thinks as you did both in the Commons Socy,9 in our conversation afterwards & now in your letter.

I was much surprised at what seemed like a proposal on your part to write reviews both of the Trades-Union Commission Report and also of Mr. Thornton’s book;2 and I am not at all surprised to find that your meaning was to include a review of both in one article. This, however, will not suit me, nor, indeed, could I undertake a review of the Trades Commission Report,3 even separately, for a considerable time to come; and I do not intend to defer writing on Mr. Thornton’s book until I write on the Trades Commission Report. For this and various other reasons, with many apologies for the trouble I have given you, I decide to withdraw my proposal altogether. I am much obliged to you for your willingness to insert an article by me on a subject in which there are considerable differences of opinion between us, and remain, dear Sir, yours very truly,

I am not sure whether, when I last wrote to you, I mentioned the work in which I was engaged, of preparing a new edition of my father’s “Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind” with Notes, bringing up the subject to the latest improvements in psychology. This is now complete, and the notes, to which Mr Grote has contributed, and in which Mr Bain has given, in a condensed form, the most important thoughts of his systematic treatises, form I think a very valuable addition to the original work. I hope you have received the copy I directed the publisher to send. . . . How is the edition (of the translation)2 proceeding? . . .

The purpose of those who have projected the Society2 mentioned in your letter is a laudable one, but it is very doubtful whether it will be realised in practice. Oral discussion on matters dependent on reasoning may be much more thorough than when carried on by written discourse, but only I think if undertaken in the manner of the Socratic dialogue, between one and one. None of the same advantages are obtained when the discussion is shared by a mixed assemblage. Even, however, as a kind of debating society on these great questions the Society may be useful, especially to its younger members. But my time is all pre-engaged to other occupations, and I do not expect any such benefit, either to others or to myself, from my taking part in the proceedings of the Society, as would justify me in putting aside other duties in order to join it.

Edition: current; Page: [1584]

It is very natural that those who are strongly convinced of the truth of their opinions should think that those who differ from them do not duly weigh their arguments.3 I can only say that I sincerely endeavour to do the amplest justice to any argument which is urged, and to all I can think of even when not urged, in defence of any opinions which I controvert.

Under the explanation given in your note, and in the understanding that the local Committee are to act in concert with, and under the general guidance of, the Committee of the Commons Preservation Society, I am willing to be a member of the Blackheath Committee, though unable to attend its meetings. I am Dear Sir

It is not desired that the petitions should be presented simultaneously.2 They are presented as they come in; and there is seldom a sitting of the House at which one or more are not presented. But as they will not be too late any Edition: current; Page: [1585] period of the session, it is worth while to keep them back as long as there seems a prospect of obtaining more signatures to them.

The rules of the House require that petitions should be in manuscript not print. The printed copies are circulated for signature, and the signatures afterwards cut off, and pasted or gummed on to the manuscript; not forgetting, however, that there must be at least one signature on the very sheet on which the petition is written.

When I leave unnoticed any point in your letter, you may safely ascribe it to want of leisure. Your views on the registration of voters being very much in accordance both with my own, and with those which seem to me to be generally entertained by the Liberal party, I had no particular reason for dwelling on the subject.

I am glad we do not differ fundamentally on the subject of the Factory Acts. I am quite prepared to find that the provision for education in those Acts, though effectual in some cases, is almost inoperative in others, and that even as regards hours of labour the machinery of the Acts is often not efficacious.

It gave me much pleasure to hear from you, and to find my anticipation confirmed, that you would enjoy your liberation from trammels as much as I do myself.2 There certainly is no blessing in human life comparable to liberty; for those at least, who having any good uses to put it to, can indulge themselves in it with a good conscience. I envy you the pleasure of having got to a Latin classic.3 I hope to be able to give myself the same satisfaction Edition: current; Page: [1586] by and by. I have not read a Greek or Latin book for at least half a dozen years, with the exception of Plato, whom I read quite through preparatory to reviewing Mr Grote’s account of him.4 Cicero’s philosophical writings are very pleasant reading and of considerable value historically, as our principal authority for much of the speculations of the Greek philosophical sects, and a brilliant specimen of the feelings of the best sort of accomplished and literary Romans towards the close of the Republic: but as philosophy they are not worth much, and I like his Orations and Letters better. It is true I am much interested in everything that relates to that great turning point of history, the going out of what was left of liberty in the ancient world; and that calm after the storm, that tragical pause at the beginning of the down-hill rush, which is called the Augustan age—so solemn in its literary monuments,5 so deformed by the presence of Augustus in it.6 No historian has treated that cunning, base, and cruel adventurer as he deserved, except Arnold in the Enc. Metropolitana,7 and Ampère in “L’Empire Romain à Rome”:8 merely because Virgil and Horace flattered him.

But this kind of reading after all is but recreation, unless one is making a particular study of history in order to write it, or for some philosophical purpose. Psychology, ethics, and politics in the widest sense of the term, are the really important studies now, both for one’s own instruction, and for exercising a useful influence over others.

The Endowed Schools Bill9 will do a great deal of good, if the proper use is made of the powers which it assumes; and Forster’s speech10 shews that he at least intends to do the best. Let us hope that he will have sufficient firmness of his own, and sufficient support from others, not merely to carry the Bill, for that is little, but to work it according to the recommendations of the School Inquiry Commissioners.11 I honour Dr Temple12 and Acland13 for producing so good a report, for I have no doubt it is mainly their doing.

Edition: current; Page: [1587]

It will be very pleasant to see you and Lady Amberley at Avignon,14 if we do not sooner. With our kind regards to her I am, Dear Lord Amberley

First and foremost let me express the great pleasure it gives me to hear of the progressive improvement in your health. Seeing how well the dry and stimulating climate of Nice seems to have agreed with you, and that it has not disagreed with Mrs Cairnes, I confess to some misgiving as to the prudence of your passing next winter in the damp and depressing climate of this island, which is dampest and cloudiest when it is mildest. But you, and your medical adviser, are better judges than I can be.

With regard to the “Analysis”,2 for which you thank me so warmly, I know no one on whom it is better bestowed, nor any one to whom it was a greater pleasure to offer it. I shall have another book to offer you very soon; a volume of about the size of the “Liberty”, on the “Subjection of Women.” It is not specially on the Suffrage question, but on all the questions relating to women’s domestic subordination and social disabilities, all of which it discusses more fully than has been done hitherto. I think it will be useful, and all the more, as it is sure to be very bitterly attacked.

I am on the point of sending to the Fortnightly the first part of a review of Thornton’s book;3 the purely economical part. I shall be very desirous of knowing whether you agree with my judgment of the book from the purely scientific point of view. I feel pretty sure you will concur in what I have written on the so-called wages fund, a subject on which I expressed myself in my Political Economy as inaccurately as other people, and which I have only within the last two or three years seen in its proper light. On the other subject on which you think Thornton vulnerable, the losing sight of the population principle, it would have been better, perhaps, if he had added a few pages on the relation of that question to his doctrine; but I have no idea that he has changed any of the opinions which are so strongly expressed in his former Edition: current; Page: [1588] writings on that subject.4 Most of the notices of his book have been just what you describe: but there have been two lately, which probably you had not yet seen—a most crabbed and cantankerous one in the Spectator,5 and a very friendly and generous one (apparently by Mr Hill) in the Daily News.6 It is very amusing in this and other cases to see how the tyros in Political Economy think themselves bound to give no quarter to heresies, being afraid to make any of the concessions which their masters make.

With regard to Gladstone’s bill, it was at first a disappointment to find that nothing better was to be done with the Church property than what is proposed.7 But I do not know how to complain; for the only better use to which the funds could be put is Education, and it was hardly to be desired that the Government should force on the fierce quarrel about Irish Education with the Church question still unsettled.8 Besides the probability that to do so might have compromised the passing of the measure it would, even when carried, have no longer been of any efficacy in allaying Irish discontent, unless, indeed, a complete surrender had been made of education to the priests. At present, this bill, at least, has been made completely satisfactory to Catholic feeling, and it will be all the more practicable to fight the education question hereafter—when there is some hope that English elementary education may first have been settled, on something like an undenominational basis.

Another reason against throwing any avoidable difficulty in the way of Church disendowment, is that its completion will open the way for the land question. It has been for some time apparent that when the religious supremacy of Protestantism is at an end, the Presbyterians of the North, and even many Orangemen, will join hands with the tenantry of the South on the land question, and the junction is coming to pass, even more quickly than could have been expected. The motion brought forward by Johnstone9 and seconded by the O’Donoghue for the repeal of the Party Processions Act, is a very significant incident.

Edition: current; Page: [1589]

I agree with you that the tithe rent charge is a very good tax; but it could not have been taken for state purposes, and it would have been a very inconvenient property to be held by Commissioners for the management of Hospitals, &c.

I look forward with great pleasure to seeing you but not at Blackheath in May, for it would be making little use of our recovered liberty not to spend in the South, for the first time since 1865, the beautiful spring months. We leave for Avignon next Tuesday, and expect to be back here early in July.

I have not seen Mr McLean’s pamphlet,2 nor have I any pamphlets or other works expressing the Protectionist doctrines held in Canada or Australia. I have only seen these doctrines put forth in newspapers which I have not kept. But there is a very good summary in Mr Dilke’s “Greater Britain”3 of the arguments which he himself heard used in the Colonies, particularly in Australia, and which he considers to be those which are mainly influential with the supporters of Protectionism there.

The pseudo-scientific arguments for Protection are given at wearisome length in H. C. Carey’s “Social Science”,4 which, take it for all in all, I consider to be about the worst book on political economy I ever read: an opinion which I was amply prepared to justify immediately after toiling through it. This book gives Protectionism the prestige of scientific authority in the United States, but its elaborate reasonings are not likely to be those Edition: current; Page: [1590] which carry conviction to the multitude. I take it that the popular argument is, as stated to me by Mr Wells,5 and in the Essay by Dr Leavitt6 to which the Cobden Club has given its medal—that if American labourers are compelled to compete with the pauper labour of Europe, they also will be reduced to pauperism. The fallacy is plausible, and a good many of the English freetraders would be puzzled to give it a satisfactory answer. If you can make the answer such as the general reader will understand, you will do a very valuable work.

I have just received, through Mrs Grote, the two volumes of Evelyn,2 to gether with your kind note. The former I had entirely forgotten. The latter would have revived, if they had ever been dormant, many old memories and feelings.

Blackheath Park, Kent, is a sufficient address. We are, however, going abroad tomorrow, but mean to return in the summer; and any communication from you—not to mention your bodily presence—would be always most welcome to

I am very happy to learn from your letter of April 10 that our opinions do not differ so materially as I was afraid they did. May I be permitted to suggest the good which you might do by putting the substance of your letter into a communication to the Editor of the Fortnightly,2 who I have no doubt would be happy by inserting it to correct whatever unintended injustice my article may have done you & at the same time to give the benefit of your high authority to the essential doctrines of the article.

On the day of our arrival here, I received your kind note. I will have your copy of the book2 sent, as soon as it is published, to the address you mention.

I cannot feel very positive in my opinion as to the questions of policy connected with the proposed disposal of the Church property, especially as you do not agree with me.3 But my impression has been, all along, that it would have been extremely difficult to pass a bill for disendowment through even the House of Commons, without deciding, in the Bill itself, what should be the application of the funds. People are very suspicious in Church matters, and a large proportion of the warmest supporters of disendowment would have suspected the Government of meditating some employment of the money which they did not yet dare disclose; probably, to give it, in some form, to the Catholic clergy.

If, in your journey to Aix, your way lies through Avignon, I hope you will give us an opportunity of snatching a sight of you as you pass. If so, perhaps you will kindly write me a line a few days before the time when we may expect you, so that we may not be absent on an excursion exactly at the time. We do not intend to make any long journey this year; nevertheless we shall not be quite stationary here through the spring, but shall make many excursions of a few days or a fortnight’s length in the neighbourhood, and probably some as far as the Pyrenees. But we shall always be returning here for our letters, &c and resting in the intervals; and as our movements in this respect will be decided chiefly by our inclinations and the exigencies of weather, if we had any reason to expect either you or Mrs Cairnes at any particular time we would arrange to be at home for that time.

My daughter and myself desire our best regards to Mrs Cairnes, and I am

You have done me the honor to inform me of the Convention about to be held in New York on the subject of Woman’s Suffrage,2 and you ask me for a letter on the occasion. I would gladly comply with the request, but the cause, in America, has advanced beyond the stage at which it could need a recommendation from me, or from any man. It is not to be believed that the nation which is now engaged in admitting the newly-liberated negro to the plenitude of all political franchises, will much longer retain women in a state of helotage which (as is truly remarked in the letter of invitation issued by your Association) is now more degrading than ever, because, being no longer shared by any of the male sex, it constitutes every woman the inferior of every man. The late glorious struggle has shaken old prejudices, and has brought men to a feeling that the principles of your democratic institutions are not mere phrases, but are meant to be believed and acted upon towards all persons; and I am persuaded that the political equality which is now refused to no one else, will be conceded to women as soon as a sufficiently large number of them unite in demanding it. I therefore heartily wish success to the approaching demonstration.

Lord Russell’s bill,2 and its favourable reception by the Lords, are no further of importance than as shewing the need which the Lords feel of strengthening Edition: current; Page: [1595] their position. So small a number of life members would do little good even if they were always honestly selected, which they will not be. A few good names may be put in at first, but, as a rule, the life peerage will be a refuge for the mediocrities of past administrations. If now and then a thoughtful and vigorous man gets in, he will, no doubt, have the means of publicly speaking his thoughts, but to an inattentive audience; for the Peers are too stupid and too conservative to be moved, except by a party leader who they think will carry distinctions to the utmost limits of practicability; and the public pay little attention to speeches in the House of Lords. I doubt if a Second Chamber can ever again carry weight in English politics, unless popularly elected. I feel sure, at all events that nothing less than what I proposed in my book on Representative Government,3 will enable it to do so. These are my opinions; but I do not wish to throw cold water on anything which acknowledges an evil, and points in the direction of improvement.

I should not at all wonder if Gladstone in what he said to you, did hint at a life peerage: though perhaps what he meant was, to hold out hopes that you might be supported by the Government in a future candidature for the House of Commons. I should be more glad if it were the last; but I do not mean that I should advise you to refuse the former, for as it would be obviously a tribute to your legislative capacity, it would doubtless increase your weight. Ever yrs truly

Your letter has followed me here, & I have read it with great interest. As a piece of English composition it is quite remarkable as the production of a foreigner; & I agree in a great part of its substance. Mr Lowe has certainly much exaggerated the strength of the case against the shilling duty on corn.2 I however differ from you on one of the leading points of your Edition: current; Page: [1596] argument, viz. where you aim at proving that the price of corn would not fall by the whole amount of the duty taken off, but by a smaller amount, dependent on the degree in which the importation of corn may be increased by the abolition of the duty. This argument was urged formerly during the discussions which preceded the repeal of our corn laws3 & I had occasion to contest it at that time. It seems to me that your argument errs by stopping short at demand & supply as the final regulators of price, without going on to that which in the last resort, adjusts the demand & supply to one another, viz. Costs of production (including all cost necessary for bringing the article to the place of sale). If from any permanent natural calamity smiting the soil with sterility the cost of production of wheat were increased by a shilling a quarter, I apprehend that the price of wheat would rise by that amount, plus the ordinary profit upon it, even if there were no diminution of supply. Whether the supply would be finally diminished or not would depend on whether the rise of price caused a falling off in the consumption. But the conditions of production having been altered, the average price (that which the producer looks forward to & calculates upon) must accommodate itself to the new conditions. And the same thing happens if instead of a natural calamity, we suppose the artificial burthen of a tax, which though levied only on a part of the corn consumed, enables all the remainder to command on the average the higher price necessary for bringing in that part: Supply & demand determine the perturbations of price; but (when the article admits of unlimited increase) not the permanent, or average, price.

I think, therefore, your argument fails in one important point; & though some of your other arguments remain valid notwithstanding, I do not think them sufficient to outweigh the advantage of getting rid of the last remaining shred of Protectionism.

But I do not therefore dissuade you from publishing your paper.4 It is written in a way to command attention, & so many intelligent persons will think your opinion correct & mine erroneous, that it is right that the opinion shd have a fair hearing. The only newspapers however which would be very likely to insert such a paper would be the Conservative journals, Standard, Herald, &c. & with them I have no relations. Probably it would have a better chance either with them or with the Times if sent by yourself.

I have received your letter & I will answer its different points seriatim.

1. My letter to Mr. Holden2 has been much misunderstood if it is supposed to indicate any change in my opinions on the sphere & functions of Government in the economical affairs of societies. The only opinion I intended to withdraw was that which recommended, in certain cases, temporary protective duties in new countries to aid the experimental introduction of new industries. And even on this point I continue to think that my opinion was well grounded but experience has shewn that protectionism, once introduced, is in danger of perpetuating itself through the private interests it enlists in its favour, & I therefore now prefer some other mode of public aid to new industries, though in itself less appropriate.

I quite agree with you that in Australia there are many important requisites of prosperity which the Govt ought not to consider it beyond its province to provide. One of these is the one you mention—works of irrigation. I have long looked forward to the time when Australia would feel the need of tanks like those of Southern India,3 to retain through the dry season the surplus rains of the few rainy months. This however is a work on a great scale requiring combined labour & therefore difficult to accomplish with your present population.

I took no part in the discussion about the purchase of the Telegraphs4 because it was a mere experiment of which I do not foresee the result. I shd object to the purchase of the railways until the smaller measure shall have approved its policy by its success. And in no case does it seem to me admissible that the Govt should work the railways. If it became proprietor of them it ought to lease them to private companies.

2. With regard to lands I am still, like yourself, in favour of the Wakefield system.5 I should however highly approve of selling the lands subject to a Edition: current; Page: [1599] land tax, if the Govt is in a condition to enforce its payment without a cost exceeding the worth; a difficulty which seemed fatal to this plan at the time when Wakefield wrote.

3. On the importation of Polynesian labourers6 I am afraid we differ more widely. If the South Sea islanders came to Queensland spontaneously, the province would have every reason to welcome their coming. But I have the most deep rooted distrust of plans for sending emissaries to induce them to come, even by no worse means than brilliant representations. And I do not believe that any laws, which it is possible to enforce among an English population, will protect ignorant & uncivilised strangers living with them as servants, against outrageous abuses of power. If the experiment ever answers it is probably with Chinese, who are a more fearless & vigorous race & are able to make themselves very unpleasant to those who ill treat them. But the common English abroad—I do not know if in this they are worse than other people—are intensely contemptuous of what they consider inferior races, & seldom willingly practise any other mode of attaining their ends with them than bullying & blows. I therefore most positively object to putting such victims in their power. If there are no other means of preventing labour from being over scanty, then I am afraid the inconveniences of the climate must be taken with its advantages. But I shd think that the agricultural population of England & Ireland would furnish (agreeably to one of Wakefield’s principles) a sufficient number of young married couples to supply in a moderate number of years the labour required.

If in the expression of these opinions I have been rather brief & abrupt, I beg that you will attribute it to my occupations & to the haste with which they oblige me to write.

You should not take the editors & their ways so much au sérieux.2 You must remember that your writings are intended for the Edition: current; Page: [1600] public good, & that the editors are not half such good judges of that as you are. Consequently it is for you to make them take your articles just as you would make them take medicine, without any amour propre at having made it up for them yourself, & so put in a little sugar now & then if need be. Now, having made a real success with your amusing as well as useful articles of travels,3 the editors ask you for more of the same, & you should give it them, wrapping up good doctrine in this form. You should be no more on your dignity with them than with children. To a man like yourself most of them are children, as regards their motives & the objects they have in view. Morley indeed is better, but I dare say he is a good deal bothered & he probably thinks that Chauffard’s Mittermaier is a subject that can wait better than most.4 I should be vexed if the paper that you wrote to oblige me should have any unpleasant effect on your relations with him.

I agree with you in exceedingly disliking the insolent & domineering affectations of Fitzjames Stephen. In pol. economy he is exceedingly ignorant, but not the less presumptuous. On other matters, however, he is able to do some useful work, & he is undoubtedly a clever man. My daughter begins to have some doubts whether he is thoroughly an honest man, either in word or deed. It is certain that he says & does oddly inconsistent things. He is always brutal, even at his best; that however is apparently in him a radical defect of temperament, which if he is otherwise an honest worker for good, might have to be overlooked. It is certain that he is very vain, & that may be the cause of many of his defects in which vanity is not apparent, as of the boyish boast that he always goes to sleep at the P.E. Club.5 Has he then so much time to spare; or does he mean that he comes because he cannot get sleep elsewhere? But he is full of this sort of fanfaronnade, which is offensive enough, but which we may excuse if he is in earnest about anything. One cannot help hoping he is because he is clever enough to do a good deal of good or of mischief.

I shall read with great interest your paper on profits.6 If it is not in print before I return to England, perhaps you would not mind letting me see it in MS. I am open to conviction, but at present I cannot see that you are likely to be successful in anything more than in shewing that the doctrine respecting value & cost of production is true within wider limits of error—is true much more roughly & only in the gross, than is often supposed by political economists. This I am quite prepared to admit.

Edition: current; Page: [1601]

I am very happy on all accounts that you have been appointed to the Examinership7—& on my own account that you are likely to bring on your question at the Club in July8 for I count upon being present at that meeting. I read & was glad of M. de Laveleye’s letter in the Economist.9 The prospect of an account of Servia & Bosnia from so good an observer & thinker is very agreeable.10

Sumner’s speech11 if serious is almost frantic. Probably however (& that is unpleasant enough) what it means is a wish not to settle the Alabama question at all but to keep the wound unhealed. One does not know what to say or do until it appears whether this is a passing gust or a permanent mood of the American mind. Perhaps it is but a reaction from Reverdy Johnson’s ill-advised & ill-timed soft sawder.12

We saw Cairnes on his way through Avignon to Aix les Bains, & you will be glad to hear how wonderfully he has improved in health. He can now walk for a short time, without even a stick, on level ground, & for the first time speaks as if he had some hopes of being restored to active life.

I do not understand Lord Dufferin.13 Why shd he wish to receive from me a production of which he thinks so unfavourably that my sending it to him of my own accord would have been almost a piece of bravado? A compliment of the sort he seems to desire from me is only suitable towards a fellow worker in the same cause, or a private friend, & Lord D. is neither: but as I shd be sorry to refuse any request of the sort from you, I will do what you asked if you wish it, on the ground that Lord D. is a friend of yours.

It does seem as if this time a Bankruptcy Bill will really pass,2 and those personally interested will be no longer kept in uncertainty concerning their future. I greatly doubt the expediency of the change, as far as relates to the abolition of your office:3 but apparently the mercantile men will have it so. In other respects this bill seems a little better than the very bad ones we have had lately, but still very different from what it ought to be.

If the bill passes, you will have more time for the subjects in which you were so deeply interested in our younger days,4 and in which I have always thought that the engrossing and anxious nature of your daily occupations has cost to the world very valuable contributions. I have myself been greatly indebted to those searching discussions, at Mr Grote’s house in Sun Court,5 of some of which the “Analysis” itself was the text, and to the value of which no one contributed more, if anybody so much, as yourself.

I had long had the project of publishing an annotated edition of the Analysis; and now when Bain’s treatises and the progress of physiology have raised up a certain public, disposed to listen to the Association view of Psychology, the republication will probably place the book in its deserved position as a text book of that view of the science.

I thank you for your letter, as I am always glad to have my opinions and arguments subjected to the criticisms of any one who has studied the subject. Edition: current; Page: [1603] It appears to me, however, that your remarks do not touch the scientific exactness of the propositions laid down in my article in the Fortnightly Review, but only the practical importance of the cases to which they are applicable. Now, though I am far from agreeing with you as to this, I have not discussed it in the article. My object, on this occasion, was to show that the door is not shut on the subject by the insuperable law of nature.

It is one thing to say that labourers, by combination, cannot raise wages (which is the doctrine of many political economists), and another to say that it is not for their interest to force up wages so high as to reduce profits below what is a sufficient inducement to saving and to the increase of capital.

I have written a second article on the subject, which will be printed in the next number of the Fortnightly, and which, though it will not satisfy you on all points, will, I think, show you that I do not disregard either the moral or the prudential obligations of trades’ unions.

Of the three modes of presenting the £200 to Mr Chesson,2 I agree with you in preferring the third; & as you wish it, I send a draft of a letter to be signed by us, if approved by you. If you will kindly return it with any improvements which occur to you I will copy it & send it to you with my signature.

Edition: current; Page: [1605]

I am glad that the Phillips case is to be carried to at least the first stage of appeal.3

O’Sullivan’s resignation has saved the country from a most mischievous infringement of the commonest principles of good government—an act of Parlt against an individual.4 Arbitrary power is arbitrary power whether exercised in legislative forms by a Parlt or in administrative forms by a king & it is precisely in the case of persons with whom hardly any body sympathises (or dares to admit that he sympathises) that fatal precedents creep in. It is a permanent blot on the conduct of the present Government that it brought in such a bill & the mischief is not altogether cancelled by its not being proceeded with.

You have gained a very honourable success in obtaining a repeal of the mischievous Act by your persevering resistance.2 There would be a certain satisfaction in getting the subject of your costs brought before Parliament by any one who would take the occasion of speaking disagreeable truths on the conduct of the Government in going on so long with the prosecution. But no practical result would follow, for there would be the ready answer that after all you were violating the law (though this you deny) and that it would be a Edition: current; Page: [1606] mischievous precedent to indemnify any one for the expense of defending what was technically illegal. As, therefore, there would be no probability of getting any of your expenses refunded to you, I think that I would rest satisfied with the really important victory you have already obtained.

Many thanks for what you are doing about the petitions.3 Now that you are in communication with Miss Taylor,4 I have no doubt that together you will judge rightly of what can be advantageously done.

I have read your letter of the 18th with attention & interest & I am much inclined to think with you that the effect of so small a duty as one shilling a quarter on wheat is not sufficient to make it certain that any perceptible relief will be obtained by taking it off. Still, we must reason about small effects on the same principle as one does on large ones. The duty gives a premium of a shilling in cost of production to home grown corn over imported. This must naturally cause a certain quantity more to be grown at home & a certain quantity less to be imported & every additional quantity grown at home in a given state of agriculture is grown at a proportionally greater cost. The average price therefore must rise sufficiently to remunerate this greater cost; but it will not rise by the full amount of the duty; otherwise it would not have the effect of reducing the quantity imported. Thus the average price of corn will, I conceive, be raised by an uncertain amount short of one shilling a quarter. But this increased price the consumer has to pay on all corn, home grown as well as imported, and from this he will be relieved by taking off the duty.

The executive body of the Jamaica Committee are anxious, in closing for Edition: current; Page: [1607] the present all active operations, to give a marked expression of their sense of the important part which you have taken in their proceedings from the commencement, and of the great value of your laborious, unremitting and disinterested services to the cause.

In all the anxieties and responsibilities of the Executive Committee you have fully participated; none of its members have contributed more usefully to its deliberations; while the onerous labours of detail have fallen mainly upon yourself.

The sacrifice even of mere time, by one who is otherwise so fully occupied as you are, entitles you at the hands of the Committee to more than a simple expression of their cordial thanks; and the funds in their possession fortunately enable them to fulfil the duty of making some compensation to you for labours so valuable, and the burthen of which ought not to fall solely on yourself. The Committee have therefore requested us to present to you, in grateful recognition of your exertions, the sum of £200, and to beg you to accept it along with their thanks for your public spirited services.

I have reconsidered the letter to Chesson2 with reference to your remarks on it; but I do not see any ready means of freeing it from the character you point out without making it less expressive of the sentiments which the Committee wish to put on record. On the whole I think it is hardly if at all a defect that the official letter should be written as if the recipient had no previous knowledge of what is intended. Anything which is taken for granted is of course not expressed; & its expression is so much abated from the complimentary matter which the recipient would naturally like to retain in a permanent form.

As, therefore, you did not suggest any particular alteration, I have made none but merely return the letter, copied fair with my signature; but if you would like any alteration it is not too late to make it.

Edition: current; Page: [1608]

I cannot but think that the dropping of the bill against O’Sullivan3 has saved the British democracy from a most perilous snare. It seems to me that the distinction between a government by general laws & one of arbitrary edicts is the broadest in all politics, & absolutely essential to good government under any constitution: for the reason long assigned by Aristotle,4 that government by law is guided by general considerations of permanent policy while government by special decree is guided by the passion of the moment. And it is most especially necessary that this distinction should not be tampered with in a popular government, for most other governments are under some check from fear of the majority; but when the majority is itself the government, the check is only in its own breast, & depends on a strong conviction in the popular mind of its necessity which conviction is enfeebled by every instance of violation. I think it would be a fatal notion to get abroad among the people of a democratic country that laws or constitutions may be stepped over instead of being altered; in other words that an object immediately desirable may be grasped directly in a particular case without the salutary previous process of considering whether the principle acted on is one which the nation would bear to adopt as a rule for general guidance. I have always admired Lincoln, among other reasons, because even for so great an end as the abolition of slavery he did not set aside the Constitution5 but waited till he could bring what he wanted to do (by a little straining perhaps) within the license allowed by the Constitution for military necessities.

[I have many letters from him between 1865 and 1873 on public questions, on the Jamaica trials in the case of Governor Eyre, on the Trades-Union Bill of 1869, on the Paris Commune, on the Women’s Suffrage question—whereon he wrote June 1869—]

There are few persons whom we all should be more glad to see even partially with us on this subject than yourself.

Mr Veitch sent me a copy of the Life of Hamilton.2 His replies to my strictures are so very weak (Mansel & water, with an infusion of vinegar) Edition: current; Page: [1613] that I shall hardly [feel] any need of giving them the distinction of a special notice; except that I am bound to admit that the passage of Aristotle which H. seemed to have misunderstood,3 was not indicated by any reference of his own, but of the editors. That is quite sufficient for my purpose; since Mansel at least has learning, & that passage of Aristotle was I suppose, the nearest he could find to bearing out what Hamilton said. But after all H. must have known what A. meant by ἐνεργεια.4 I agree with you as to the general impression which the book gives of Hamilton.5 Only as it shews advantageously a side of his character which I had no knowledge of, that of his private affections, the general result rather raised him in my eyes.

I [am] glad to be confirmed by you in my impression that nothing in my notes to the Analysis, on the question of Belief,6 is incompatible with your theory of it. I shall be very glad to see your last views of the subject more fully developed. Cairnes, who had not previously studied psychology very seriously but who has now been reading both the Analysis & our notes with full appreciation & great edification, seems to feel a need of some further explanations on the doctrine of Belief as connected with the Will,7 & what a man of his practised intelligence wants is likely to be wanted by most others. As far as we two are concerned, it is very unlikely that any difference of opinion shd develop itself when your doctrine is explicitly worked out.

I hope the new book8 reached you early. Longman is wanting to print a second edition.

The Lords have done all the mischief they could to the Scotch Education Bill.9 One would have thought the unanimous recommendations of a Commission, partly Tory & fairly representative of all sections in Scotland, might have passed their ordeal. But they will no doubt as you say, revenge themselves for having to eat their leek (if they do eat it) in the Church question10 by spoiling other Bills. They are becoming a very irritating kind of minor nuisance.

I have gone over the paper which you have sent,2 and have condensed it a little, with some alteration in the arrangement. If you approve of it as it now stands, I should be happy to sign it along with the others. The signatures should, I think, be in alphabetical order. I see no objection to its being printed, with the words “private & confidential” as you propose.

I beg you to put me down as a subscriber of £100, not on the score of interest foregone, but in virtue of the £100 I lent to you,3 which will now be not a loan but a subscription. I am

I fully agree with you that in a great many cases women tyrannize over men, and you will find that I have not omitted to notice this in the little book I sent you,2 nor to notice the fact that it is generally the best men who get the worst tyrannized over. But in this case as in a great many others, two negatives do not make an affirmative, or at all events two affirmatives do not make a negative and two contradictory tyrannies do not make liberty. In the first place the illegitimate power of women is greater than it would be if they had legitimate freedom. The consciousness of their weakness makes the most generous men shrink from exacting justice from them: while the fact that women have to submit to injustice through the whole of their lives, dulls in them the sense of justice when circumstances put it in their power to be the arbiters of justice towards others. Moreover, the more decidedly we think Edition: current; Page: [1615] that women are already a great power in society—and no one is more strongly of that opinion than I am—the more important it becomes that they should be fit to exercise it properly. All the mischievous sources of women’s power are exaggerated by our morbid habit of dwelling upon sex as deciding their whole destiny in life: and this same system makes both the motives and the methods of women’s influence morbid and demoralizing in their turn. I shall hope to have some opportunities of talking over this and other matters with you, if you are in town in the summer, and can spare us an afternoon now and then. Are any of your Sundays in July or the first half of August disengaged? and if you could come down and dine with us on any of them, will you let me know which? I am

It was kind of you to spare time from your anxious labours to acknowledge receipt of the little book.2

I thank you for your kind invitations. As you are aware, I hardly ever go out in the evening; but I am not disposed to let drop the privilege of breakfasting with you, and I shall be glad to avail myself of it after I return to England, which will be early next month. I am

I hope you have duly received from the publisher a copy of the little book I have just published “The subjection of women”. I have received several Edition: current; Page: [1616] applications to translate it into German, and as it is very desirable that this should be done immediately, I have accepted the offer of Dr. Heinemann,2 Professor at the Civil Service College; reserving your right to include in the collected edition either his translation by agreement with him or a different translation. I expect that Dr. Heinemann will write to you on the subject. I should very much like to hear from you sometimes, respecting your own and your sister’s health, the progress of the edition,3 and your own pursuits, projects, and opinions.

I have had so much to do, and so many other letters to write, that I have delayed till now thanking you for your most acceptable letter of May 23, and especially for the sifting which you have given to my review of Thornton.2 You may imagine how gratifying it is to me that you give so complete an adhesion to the view I take of the wages fund. In regard to the general subject of demand and supply, I think there is not, at bottom, any considerable difference between us. My object in the Fortnightly was to shew that the cases supposed by Thornton do not contradict and invalidate, as he thinks they do, the equation of supply and demand. In this you agree with me, and you do not think the doctrine incorrect. The amount of its value, either scientific or practical, is a different question. But, while I admit almost all that you say, I think that the proposition as laid down is something more than an identical proposition. It does not define, nor did it, as I stated it, affect to define the causes of variations in value. But it declares the condition of all such variations, and the necessary modus operandi of their causes, viz. that they operate by moving the supply to equality with the demand, or the demand to equality with the supply. The numerous considerations which you notice as influencing the minds of sellers, are, all of them, considerations of probable future demand and supply, modifying the effect which would take place if nothing but present facts were considered. Now it appears to me important to point out that these prospective considerations operate by inducing the sellers either to Edition: current; Page: [1617] convert a possible present supply into an actual one, or to withdraw an actual present supply into the region of merely possible ones; and that in either case the relation of the price to the actual supply and demand is constant, i.e. the price is that which will make them equal. If this statement does no more than give a distinct scientific expression to what is already implied in the terms used, still it is not unimportant to evolve and make explicit what the facts of purchase and sale and a market price really involve.

I am delighted that you have derived so much pleasure and advantage from the Analysis. That alone is enough to satisfy me of the great good likely to be done by its republication. With regard to the difficulties you have found in some of Bain’s notes,3 he is aware that his doctrines respecting Belief and Volition require further explanations and developments. I am myself not always sure that I am able to follow him in every detail, though I do not think that any of my views clash with his. I am, however, inclined to agree in what I think is his opinion, that volition is not a name for a peculiar state of feeling or phenomenon of mind, but only a name for the immediate and irresistible sequence between the specific action of the efferent nerve fibres and the internal cause which produces it, and which is either an idea, a desire, or (as explained for the first time by Bain) the spontaneous activity of the nervous system under the stimulus of nutriment.

Pray thank Mrs Cairnes very warmly for her kind letter. I hope to be able to talk over with her and you any remaining difficulties she may feel.4 I wish the opportunity were nearer than it is likely to be, for Penzance and Blackheath are very far apart.5 But if Penzance aids your restoration to health, I shall be very grateful to it. We were happy to hear good accounts of you from those who saw you in your passage through London.

I return the printed circular with my signature.2 I think the signatures as well as the list of subscribers should be in alphabetical order, as otherwise Edition: current; Page: [1618] it is apt to be thought that the person who signs first is the originator, and that the others only give their adhesion. I am Dear Sir

Few things could be more pleasant or more encouraging to me than such a letter as yours. It is a great satisfaction that you not only agree so completely with the little book,2 but think so highly as you do of its probable influence. It is quite true that it was written principally with a view to the state of society and opinion in England; and even with respect to that, it bears traces of having been written, as it was, several years ago. I am aware that the circumstances of the United States are, for the reasons you give, decidedly more favourable than those of the old country. Accordingly, the movement commenced in America, and is much more advanced there than in England though it is advancing very rapidly in England too. It will probably be some time before a Committee of the House of Commons will recommend the admission of women to the parliamentary suffrage; but the repeal of the legal provision which excluded women from the municipal franchise, has just passed the House of Commons unopposed.3 The present session will also see (unless the Lords stop it) the right of married women to their own property and earnings acknowledged,4 and placed on the same footing in England as in most of the States of the Union. We live in times when broad principles of justice, perseveringly proclaimed, end by carrying the world with them. Your great anti-slavery contest has done that much for mankind. How little did the cotemporaries of the voyage of the Mayflower suspect what was to come of it!

America will probably also be the first to resolve the complicated question of marriage and divorce. It cannot be resolved until women have an equal voice in deciding it.

If we were going to stay here, we should not envy you even your magnificent Edition: current; Page: [1619] view of the Lake and the Dent du Midi;5 but we are going back to England, though only for a few weeks. With our kind regards to Mrs Norton, I am

I can only say in return for your & Mr Huth’s generous wish to defray the whole of the expenses of the publication of the C[ommon] P[lace] books2 that I am sure your wish to publish them is wise, both with a view to Mr B[uckle’s] reputation & with a view to their real literary value. In fact, no memoir however good could give so good an idea of the workings of his mind. The copying is proceeding steadily & I hope there will be no further difficulties in the publication. We expect to be in England next month & to see Mrs Allatt who is now there as well as Miss Shireff, & will do all we can to help Miss Shireff to obtain materials, of which however I imagine there exist but few. If you shd be writing please direct to me B[lackheath] P[ark] Kent.

I have been stopped here on my way to England by a sudden attack of what the doctor calls cholerine. The attack is over, but I am obliged to return by short stages, and we are not sure when we shall be at Blackheath. I am therefore obliged, much to my regret, to postpone the pleasure of seeing you. Edition: current; Page: [1620] If you are still in town on the Sunday after next (July 11) we hope you will come down to us on that afternoon instead.

I suppose there can be no doubt of your having before this time returned to England, so I inclose a crossed cheque for your share of the payment for the copyrights &c.2 I hope that your winter in the South has benefitted your health, and that the improvement will be permanent.

My murderous propensities are confined to the vegetable world. I take as great a delight in the pursuit of plants as you do in that of salmon, and find it an excellent incentive to exercise. Indeed I attribute the good health I am fortunate enough to have, very much to my great love for exercise, and for what I think the most healthy form of it, walking.

My late attack at Paris was choleraic,2 dangerous for a few hours, and leaving me a little weak, but I am now quite recovered, thanks partly to having wandered about the Dunes at Calais and the Downs at Dover in pursuit of specimens for my herbarium.

Edition: current; Page: [1621]

We are very sorry to lose the opportunity of seeing you this year, and if you are not otherwise occupied and are inclined to take the trouble of coming down and dining with us at our five o’clock dinner on Thursday we shall be delighted to see you. But we shall be quite alone. If any of your excursions should lead you to the South, we shall always be glad to see you at Avignon, where we shall be for the autumn and winter.

I have to thank you for the very gratifying letter you sent me some time ago. Will you and Mr Hill do us the pleasure of coming down and dining with us on Saturday, the 17th July? We dine at six o’clock. I am

Mr J.S. Mill requests Mr King to send a complete copy of the Reports and Evidence of the Trades Union Commission2 to Mr Trübner 60 Paternoster Row, in Mr Mill’s name, and to send the account to Mr Mill.

Such a letter as yours is a sufficient reward for the trouble of writing the little book.2 I could have desired no better proof that it was adapted to its purpose, than such an encouraging opinion from you. I thank you heartily, for taking the trouble to express in such kind terms, your approbation of the book; the approbation of one who has rendered such inestimable service to the cause of women by affording in her own person so high an example of their intellectual capabilities, and finally, by giving to the protest in the great petition of last year, the weight and importance derived from the signature which headed it.3 I am

I am very glad that you are so well pleased with the new book.2 With regard to the single point on which you are doubtful,3 my defence is this. The policy of not laying down wider premises than are required to support the practical conclusion immediately aimed at, was a wise policy ten years ago. It was the right policy until the women’s suffrage question had acquired such a footing in practical politics as to leave little danger of its being thrown back. But the question has now entered into a new & more advanced stage. The objection with which we are now principally met is that women are not fit for, or not capable of, this, that or the other mental achievement. And though it is a perfectly good answer to say that if this be a fact, things will adjust themselves to it under free competition, & also that without free competition we cannot know whether it is a fact or not, many will ask, & many more will feel, “Why make a great change & disturb people’s minds only to give women leave to do what there is no probability that they either can or will do? Why make a revolution on the plea that it will do no harm, when you cannot shew that it will do any good?” Even if on no other account than this, it is thoroughly time to bring the question of women’s capacities into the front rank of the discussion.

But there is a still stronger reason. The most important thing we now have to do, is to stir up the zeal of women themselves. We have to stimulate their aspirations—to bid them not despair of anything nor think anything beyond their reach but try their faculties against all difficulties. In no other way can the verdict of experience be fairly collected, & in no other way can we excite the enthusiasm in women which is necessary to break down the old barriers. This is more important now than to conciliate opponents. But I do not believe that opponents will be at all exasperated by taking this line. On the contrary I believe the point has now been reached at which, the higher we pitch our claims, the more disposition there will be to concede part of them. All I have yet heard of the reception of the new book confirms this idea. People tell me that it is lowering the tone of our opponents as well as raising Edition: current; Page: [1624] that of our supporters. Everything I hear strengthens me in the belief, which I at first entertained with a slight mixture of misgiving that the book has come out at the right time & that no part of it is premature.

One effect which the suffrage agitation is producing is to make all sorts of people declare in favour of improving the education of women. That point is conceded by almost everybody & we shall find the education movement for women favoured & promoted by many who have no wish at all that things shd go any further. The cause of political & civil enfranchisement is also prospering almost beyond hope. You have probably observed that the admission of women to the municipal franchise has passed the Commons & is passing the Lords without opposition.4 The bill for giving married women the control of their own property has passed through the Commons, all but the third reading & is thought to have a good chance of becoming law this session.5

I shall be very glad to give you letters to any of my friends in America.2 If there are any people in particular to whom you wish for introductions from me, and will let me know their names, I will write to them, if I am acquainted with them. We shall hope to see you some day before you leave.

The meeting3 was a far greater success than the newspapers would lead you to imagine. The uniform level of the speaking was quite unprecedentedly good, and I believe it has struck a really important blow.

Your article on the Patent Laws4 was much needed, and exceedingly good. It will be extremely useful. I am

I am glad to hear that my notes of Mr Austin’s Lectures have been useful, and shall be obliged if you will kindly address them here as well as the copy of the new edition which I have been favoured with,3 by the Parcels Delivery Company. I am Dear Sir

I am happy to hear that you anticipate a successful session of the Social Science Association in October.2 I am much honoured by your wish that I should read [sic] a paper to be read on the occasion. I have hitherto, though often solicited, always abstained from taking part by written papers or otherwise, in the proceedings of any of the various associations for the discussion of social questions; because I think my vocation is chiefly to lay the foundations of future improvement by the discussion of general principles, while the business of associations like yours is the consideration of immediate practical applications, dependent on a knowledge of details which I seldom possess nor have time to acquire. For example on the subject which you suggest to me for a paper—the Act of Congress on the limitation of labour to eight hours:3 the only part of the question which I feel qualified to treat, is, whether legislative limitations of the hours of labour can ever be desirable, or are properly within the competence of governments; to which my answer would be in the affirmative. But whether, in the particular circumstances of the working classes of the United States, such a measure is required, or does more good than harm, I am not in a condition to discuss. If I feel called upon to study and think out any practical question with sufficient thoroughness to be qualified to write upon it, the probable result would be that I should publish a pamphlet or a book respecting it. On the whole, therefore, you must not count upon me for a contribution, though it is just possible that, in the interval before your meeting, some subject may present itself to me on which I may think that I could usefully address a few pages to your Association.

We had a long discussion at the meeting yesterday on the resolution drawn up by the Sub Committee.2 In addition to some of those who were at the past meeting, Jacob Bright and Maclaren were present. The minds of most of them Edition: current; Page: [1629] proved to be extremely unprepared on the points which have not yet been fully discussed in the newspapers. Even Morrison3 could not be made to see the advantage of keeping land unappropriated for the purpose of experiments. It conflicted with their notion of “free trade in land.” At last Beales proposed a new wording of the sixth point making it much more general, and after some parley this was agreed to. It now stands:—

“As one means of the object last proposed; to endeavour to procure4 such an administration of landed property owned by public bodies, or held for any public or charitable purposes, as shall best carry out such object.”

The whole is subject to the confirmation of another meeting, to be held next Saturday at two, at which I hope you may be able to attend. The desire to hear your opinion of the new form given to No 6 was one of the motives for appointing the further meeting.

The new wording will enable us hereafter to bring forward your ideas, and we may hope to get them adopted by the Association when it has heard them sufficiently discussed.5 But the approximation made to them in the present wording is as much as, I think, any of the members of parliament present except Fawcett would pledge himself to, by joining the Association. And it is desirable to carry them with us, if only in hopes of their future conversion, which I do not by any means despair of. I am Dear Mr Hare

I did read, with much approbation, your remarks on Hobhouse.2 I have Edition: current; Page: [1630] been very much pleased also with those on financial reform3 (which I return) and interested by the particulars about your model cottage.4

There is, as you say, plenty to be done, and I find it so as well as you. I am almost as much overdone as when I was in the House. But I look forward to some relief when we return to Avignon.

It is a great triumph of freedom of opinion that the Evidence Bill should have passed both houses without being seriously impaired.2 You may justly take to yourself a good share of the credit of having brought things up to that point.

With regard to taking an oath,3 I conceive that when a bad law has made that a condition to the performance of a public duty, it may be taken without dishonesty by a person who acknowledges no binding force in the religious part of the formality; unless (as was your own case) he has made it the special Edition: current; Page: [1631] and peculiar work of his life to testify against such formalities, and against the beliefs with which they are connected.4 I am

We were very glad to hear from you again, and to be told in what direction you are working. Would you like to receive the Edinburgh and Westminster Reviews? I will send them to you, if they would be of any use. I am acquainted with Mr John Morley. My daughter desires to be kindly remembered to Mrs Plummer, and I am

My daughter mentioned to Mrs Fawcett that she thought perhaps Mrs Isabella Hooker might be willing and able to give the account of the progress of the movement for the emancipation of women in America which was Edition: current; Page: [1632] wanted by the French lady who wrote to Mrs Fawcett. Mrs Hooker’s address is Mrs Isabella Beecher Hooker

I have been so much occupied of late, in spite of my absence from Parliament, that I have had no time for any letters that could possibly be spared. I am very glad to hear that the Reviews will be of use. You are very welcome to mention my name to Mr Morley, and if I have an opportunity I will mention you to him. With our regards to Mrs Plummer I am

I have been long without acknowledging your letter of July 20 because there were several points in it on which I wished to make some remarks & I have not had time to do this sooner. Even now I am unable to do Edition: current; Page: [1633] it at any length. You have, I doubt not, understood what I have endeavoured to impress upon the readers of my book,2 that the opinions expressed in it respecting the natural capacities of women are to be regarded as provisional; perfect freedom of development being indispensable to afford the decisive evidence of experiment on the subject: & if as you truly say, conventionalities have smothered nature still more in women than in men, the greater is the necessity for getting rid of the conventionalities before the nature can be manifested. I have however thought it indispensable to weigh such evidence as we have & examine what conclusions it points to, & I certainly think that in all matters in which women do not entirely lean upon men, they have shown a very great amount of practical talent. I do not read the new evidence respecting Queen Elizabeth as you seem to do.3 She was already known to have had weaknesses of vanity & temper, but with the means of realising her position now afforded to us by the mass of contemporary documents transcribed by Froude,4 I confess she seems to me to have taken on the whole more just views of general policy than her critics. For example: with the very small pecuniary resources she had (a thing generally forgotten) the economy absolutely indispensable could only be enforced by making those whom she employed (every one of whom was always in great need of money for the purposes of his department) feel constantly extreme difficulty in getting it & the strongest motive to do without it if he could. Again, with half or more than half her subjects Catholics, herself under the ban of the Pope5 & with a Catholic competitor for the throne,6 was it not wise in her to take advantage as long as she could of the real indisposition of the powerful Philip7 (an indisposition never fully known till now) to drive her to extremities? We are bound to remember that after all that is said of the danger to which she exposed England & Protestantism by her parsimony & over-caution, the event has justified her; England & Protestantism survived the risk & came out with greatly increased power & éclat.

Edition: current; Page: [1634]

If you have read Mr Motley’s last two volumes,8 you will have observed a great change in his tone respecting Elizabeth. There are no more of the disparaging comments of his earlier volumes but on the contrary her abilities are always spoken of with great respect.

As you truly say, queens, & kings, too, are now superfluous; but the experience which women have given of themselves as queens is not obsolete. They are not now wanted as queens, but the qualities which made them successful as queens are still the conditions of success in all the practical affairs of mankind.

I thought it best not to discuss the questions about marriage & divorce along with that of the equality of women; not only from the obvious inexpediency of establishing a connexion in people’s minds between the equality, & any particular opinions on the divorce question, but also because I do not think that the conditions of the dissolubility of marriage can be properly determined until women have an equal voice in determining them, nor until there has been experience of the marriage relation as it would exist between equals. Until then I should not like to commit myself to more than the general principle of relief from the contract in extreme cases.

Want of time has prevented me from sooner thanking you for the very interesting letter you wrote to me on the subject of my little book.2 On the few points which you criticise you shew so clear a discernment of both sides of the question that there is little need or scope for answering you. Only on the smallest of them the good government of Indian princesses,3 do your remarks present anything to be corrected. In an Asiatic principality good government (even comparative) is never obtainable by letting alone. It is obtained by an ever watchful eye & a strong hand, depending as it does upon a rigid & vigorous control of the subordinate agents of Edition: current; Page: [1635] government, whose power of plunder & tyranny if left to themselves is irresistible. The rulers who do let things alone, are those whose affairs fall into disorder & their countries into anarchy through their supineness & self indulgence; & these are generally male rulers. The measure of good government in the East is the closeness of the ruler’s application to business; & it is really remarkable that the instances of this should be so preponderant in the temporary rule of women as regents.

The comparison of women to slaves4 was of course not intended to run on all fours. I thought the differences too obvious to need stating, & that the fundamental resemblances were what required to be insisted on. But a different judgment coming from you cannot but be valuable to me.

The most important of your points is the suggestion of a possible turning of what is said about the usefulness of the present feminine type as a corrective to the present masculine, into an argument for maintaining the two types distinct by difference of training.5 You have yourself gone into considerations of great importance in answer to this argument, all of which I fully accept. I shd add some others to them, as, first, it is not certain that the differences spoken of are not partly at least natural ones, which would subsist in spite of identity of training; secondly the correction which the one type supplies to the excesses of the other is very imperfectly obtained now owing to the very circumstance that women’s sphere & men’s are kept so much apart. At present, saving fortunate exceptions, women have rather shown the good influence of this sort which they might exercise over men, than actually exercised it.

We have much regretted that your absence prevented us from seeing anything of you during our summer stay here; but what is a loss to us is a gain to you. We shall hope to be indemnified when we are next in England. We leave for Avignon in two or three days.

Your letter is extremely gratifying, and shows how much may be done by real earnestness and public spirit. You have done very wisely to write to the Post Master General about the Petition2 because I have seen some causes to suspect that members of Parliament are not altogether to be trusted in this matter. Certain it is, that during the time I was in Parliament, no petitions sent to me by post—and I believe I had more than the average number—ever failed to be delivered by the post; also that among all the petitions got up by or for the London Women’s Suffrage Society, I have never heard of one directed to the Society that failed to come to hand. It is exceedingly desirable that the petitions should whenever possible be forwarded by the constituents direct to their own member, but it is singular that failures on the part of the Post Office generally take place in these cases. Possibly there is some failure in the delivery at the House of Commons: nevertheless I myself had always every cause to think highly of the attention and exactitude of the officers of the House, and it never happened to me to lose anything from their neglect, any more than through the neglect of the Post Office.

I send you some reports of the meeting of the London Women’s Suffrage Society,3 and you can have any number that you would like to distribute among your friends. To be a member of the Society it is only necessary to subscribe one shilling per annum and to give the name and address. You can either send in your own name and address and that of any friends who wish to be members, along with the necessary postage stamps, to Mrs. P. A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill, London, W. (Honorary Secretary of the Society) or to me. The former would be the simpler and quicker, and you will receive receipts from Mrs. Taylor in due time and also in future as many copies as you would like to have of all the publications of the Society. I will ask Mrs. Fawcett, wife of Professor Fawcett M.P., whether it would be possible for her to go and speak at Stoke. Either she or Mrs Taylor would speak well, if it were possible for either of them to make arrangements to do so. It is just possible that my friend Professor Fawcett might be able himself to go to Stoke, and the cause of Women’s Suffrage has no more active, judicious and useful friends than Mr and Mrs Fawcett.

Edition: current; Page: [1637]

The Land Tenure Reform Association is only in process of formation. As soon as the terms of membership are settled, I will let you know.

If you could make use of more copies of my little book on the Subject. of Women and would let me know how many you would like I will direct my publisher to send them to you.

My letters are forwarded to me from England once a week & I received your letter of the 1st too late for you to receive my reply on Monday. Any one who would draw out a careful statement of exactly the points indicated Edition: current; Page: [1639] in your letter would be doing a very great service to the public, but it would be difficult to get correct information on all these points. The ballot in the U. S. of America is I believe universal, but also, I believe, quite inoperative as to secrecy. The same thing is true of France, & true to a considerable extent of the Australian colonies. It is said, that in some of the Australian colonies & in Greece, the secret is well kept. I believe that it would be next to impossible to get authentic information on all these points except on the spot or by a long & varied acquaintance with natives of each country, as most people make very loose & careless statements even on the most literal matters of fact, & it is necessary to collate the statements of a great many, to get at the facts even in one individual case. To draw out a really trustworthy comparative table of the mere bare facts concerning the ballot would be a matter of time & labour requiring a good deal of cooperation. It would probably well repay the labour, but there exists no association that I know of for the purpose of combating the Ballot in any way. I do not think that the almost certainty of the Ballot being tried in England before long shd be any discouragement, but the contrary, to our efforts to get at the truth about it, & should you & your friends be disposed to undertake any labours of the kind I shall be happy to furnish you with introductions to any of my foreign friends & correspondents. Mr Arthur Arnold2 has written an account of the method practised in Greece to secure secrecy & I believe has mentioned in that some of the other systems which are inoperative in this respect, & I believe this is the best & almost the only attempt to give statements of mere facts on the subject in English.

In America it would appear that nobody desires to keep his vote secret & that the ballot is preferred only as a convenient & quiet mode of collecting the votes. I observe also that the eulogiums one often hears from Australia on the working of the Ballot in Victoria turn almost entirely on the tranquillity & good order in which the elections are there conducted through abolition of the open poll. Now it is evident that these benefits do not at all depend on the secrecy of the votes, but on their being given in the silent mode of putting tickets into a box; & would be equally attained if the voter were required to sign his name to his voting ticket.

You have perceived, what I should wish every one who reads my little book to know that whatever there is in it which shews any unusual insight into nature or life was learnt from women—from my wife, and subsequently also from her daughter.

What you so justly say respecting the infinitely closer relationship of a child to its mother than to its father, I have learnt from the same source to regard as full of important consequences with respect to the future legal position of parents & children. This, however, is a portion of the truth for which the human mind will not, for some time, be sufficiently prepared to make its discussion useful.

But I do not perceive that this closer relationship gives any ground for attributing a natural superiority in capacity of moral excellence to women over men. I believe moral excellence to be always the fruit of education & cultivation, & I see no reason to doubt that both sexes are equally capable of that description of cultivation. But the position of irresponsible power in which men have hitherto lived is, I need hardly say, most unfavourable to almost every kind of moral excellence. So far as women have been in possession of irresponsible power they too have by no means escaped its baneful consequences.

With hearty congratulations on the progress of the cause of women in both our countries & in most other parts of the civilized world, I am &c

I thank you sincerely for your letter. I had but a slight personal acquaintance, of rather old date, with General Thompson, but I have always regarded Edition: current; Page: [1641] him with very high respect, and rejoiced that he was preserved to see so many of the things he had so nobly struggled for brought into successful operation. He was one of the worthiest, as he was one of the latest, survivors of the generation to which he belonged, and which he had served. I am Dear Sir

My life contains no incidents which in any way concern the public; and with the exception of my writings, which are open to every one, there are no materials for such a biographical sketch as you contemplate. The only matter which I can furnish is a few dates. Born in London, May 20, 1806. Educated wholly by my father, James Mill, author of History of British India, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, and other works. In 1823 received an appointment in the East India House, and rose progressively to be the head of the principal office of correspondence between the home authorities and the local government of India, a post which had been held by my father. Quitted the service in 1858, when the functions of the East India Company were transferred to the Crown. Married in 1851 to Harriet, daughter of Thomas Hardy Esq. of Birksgate, near Huddersfield and widow of John Taylor Esq merchant of London; who died in 1858. Elected to Parliament for Westminster in 1865; was an unsuccessful candidate for that city in 1868.

I am your debtor for two interesting letters, one from Peyrusse, the other from London, the last of which owing to an excursion we were making from home I did not receive until a week after it was written. You seem to have had a long & varied tour & I look forward with much pleasure to reading your observations on the districts you visited, more especially as I have but little personal acquaintance with most of them. In regard to Britany in most parts of which I have travelled formerly2 I thought its backwardness even then much exaggerated, but Rennes & its neighbourhood are a favourable specimen. What the French call “La Bretagne Bretonnante” is, or was fifteen years ago much wilder, though really very like the wilder parts of England. I should like to know your opinion of M. Victor Bonnet.3 Judging from his article on the Gold question in the Revue des 2 Mondes of 15th August last4 he seems but a poor political economist. Though acquainted with your speculations on the subject he seems quite at sea as to the application of them.

It seems to me that whatever can be justly said against women’s fitness for politics either on the score of narrowness or violence of partisanship arises chiefly if not wholly, from their exclusion from politics. Their social position allows them no scope for any feelings beyond the family except personal likings & dislikes, & it is assumed that they would be governed entirely by these in their judgment & feeling in political matters. But it is precisely by creating in their minds a concern for the interests which are common to all, those of their country & of human improvement, that the tendency to look upon all questions as personal questions would most effectually be corrected.

My daughter thinks the opinions expressed by the ladies you mention5 very natural for French men & women & those whose ideas have been most formed by French literature & for two reasons:—

1. The peculiar bringing up of women has on the whole from a multiplicity of causes having to do with the history of the nation & also with race Edition: current; Page: [1643] peculiarities tended in England to make women both weaker & gentler than men; in France, to make them more energetic and passionate. This passion & energy is chiefly used up in rivalry with other women, & a habit of fierce, passionate contest between women as individuals is acquired. What helps to this is that energetic Frenchwomen are apt to be less domestic than energetic Englishwomen partly on account of the smaller families, partly of the custom of sending the children out to nurse and to pension. Their energies are thus devoted in greater proportion than in England to rivalry with other women in dress, in love affairs, & in social success; so that being at once more energetic & more given to using their energies in specific contests for superiority with other women, they are more disposed to personal enmities.

2. It is probably true that women on the average are more what the French mean by jealous than men; it is certainly true that the less civilised people are more jealous in this sense than the more civilised; probably on this account it is that women are more jealous than men as certainly the French are more jealous than the English. There seems however good reason to think that one of the specific benefits of political freedom is that it diminishes this moral vice of jalousie to which the French are more subject than any other people I know, in private affairs, although not more so than the Spaniards & Greeks in politics. You have evidently seen the true answer when you say that the habit of combination for common objects which is always induced by political freedom is the cure for the passionate & self willed disposition of which the French accuse women & other nations accuse the French.

I inclose three French postage stamps of 20 centimes being the equivalent of those inclosed in your letter.

Your letter of Sept 29 has just reached me. I am very glad to hear of so many & such good adhesions. It is a proof that many have arrived at the conviction that the time has come for making some improvement in the land laws. But the subject has been so little discussed that there is sure to be great difference of opinion as to what that improvement shd be. I myself agree in principle with Mr Odger & his friends;2 but if the Assn were to adopt Edition: current; Page: [1644] as its purpose the resumption of all the land from its proprietors it could not hope for any support except from a portion of the working classes. The proposal is entirely new & startling to all other classes & a great deal of preparation will be required to induce them even to listen to it patiently. An Association to agitate on a question is seldom timely or useful until the public have first been to a certain degree familiarized with the subject so that hopes may be entertained of making at once a considerable show of strength. We are certainly very far from this point in regard to the question of taking possession of all the land & managing it by the State; I say nothing at present of the reasonable doubt which may be entertained whether we have yet reached such a degree of improvement as would enable so vast a concern to be managed on account of the public without a perfectly intolerable amount of jobbing. I merely say that the general mind of the country is as yet totally unprepared to entertain the question. It is possible that the active spirits in the working classes may think nothing worth trying for short of this, & may consequently withhold their support from the Assn. I think this would be a great mistake; but we must be prepared for the possibility of it.

I agree with Mr Taylor in thinking that the alteration which was proposed in Art 5,3 which seems to let in claims to an interest in the land on the part of the working classes generally as distinguished from those who are actually at work on the land is more than verbal & exceeds the reasonable powers of a Sub Committee.

With regard to my attendance at the first meeting of the Assn I shall be able to speak more precisely when I know at what time it is proposed to hold the meeting, & what is to be done there. I am anxious that you shd understand clearly that the only relation which I can hold towards the Assn is that of a member, & occasional speaker. You talk of “leadership” but that is entirely out of the question.4 It would be impossible for me to undertake a prominent position in the Assn without giving to it an amount of time and labour which I do not feel called upon to give; withdrawing me as it would do from literary occupations to which, both on public and private [grounds] I prefer to devote my energies.

I have much pleasure in inclosing a note I have received from Mr W. Edition: current; Page: [1645] Rossiter, the manager of the South London Working Men’s College.5 He will be a most desirable & valuable member of the Assn. I have referred him to you for all points of information.

I return your paper of questions, with answers annexed as you request. The most common of the informalities which prevent a petition from being received, is a breach of the rule that at least one of the signatures should be written on the sheet of paper on which the petition itself is written. A single signature on the same sheet authenticates it as at least the petition of somebody: but if all the signatures are on sheets pasted on, there is no positive assurance that any of them were really intended for the petition to which they are in that manner annexed.

Your petition,2 however, seems never to have reached the stage at which it could be rejected for informality; since this takes place after, not before, the petition has been presented to the House and referred to the Committee of Petitions. If your petition never reached the member to whom it was addressed (which from your former letter I understood to be affirmed by him) the miscarriage (if you are sure that it was posted) must either be imputable to the Post Office or to the officers of the House of Commons.

I will write to ascertain whether it will be possible for Mr and Mrs Fawcett, or any other of the ladies of the Committee, to attend and speak at a meeting in your borough.3 I will also direct the publishers to send you a number of copies of the little book. There seems a great probability that the Edition: current; Page: [1647] question will be brought forward in the House next session; but people should be willing to petition whether this is the case or not. A great question is seldom carried without long perseverance in working for it.

I shall always be happy to hear your opinions on any subject on which you like to write to me.

Mr William Wood, a working man in the Potteries, who has long been a correspondent of mine, and is one of the most thoughtful and sensible working men with whom I have ever been in communication, is of opinion that a public meeting on Women’s Suffrage might usefully be held, or at the least a lecture delivered, in the borough of Stoke on Trent, and offers to take upon himself the work of making the necessary arrangements, provided that one of the leaders of the movement is able to be present, and especially if, as he says, “one at least of the ladies who are the glory and no small part of the strength of the movement be present to speak to us in its advocacy.” This last he considers of primary importance. He will write further on the details of arrangements if I can tell him that you and Mrs Fawcett would be able and willing to take part. Mr Wood was the first to broach the subject in the local press, and has ascertained by a successful personal canvass for signatures to a petition that “there is really a large body of people in the Borough who are favourable to the movement, and who with a little organisation, would be willing to give an active support to it.” He adds “I have assurance of assistance in any future action in the matter from many of the most active and intelligent politicians amongst my own class, and also from some of the few with whom I came in contact of the wealthier classes in the borough.” A meeting, therefore, under your and Mrs Fawcett’s auspices would not be likely to be a failure, and might tend to promote the movement among the working classes in general; and Mr Wood thinks that the presence of a lady among its advocates might encourage ladies in the locality to join. It seems a pity that such favourable promise should not be taken advantage of. Next Edition: current; Page: [1648] to a meeting, a lecture by Mrs Fawcett would be most useful, and the same lecture might afterwards be delivered in other places. If you and Mrs Fawcett look favourably on the proposal, I think you will find Mr Wood capable of fulfilling all he promises. His address is 6 Hawkesmere Street, Hanley, Stoke on Trent.

The cause seems to be prospering everywhere. There are responses to my little book in almost all parts of Europe. It is being translated into Polish; I have had three proposals for translating it into Russian and a greater number than I can remember into German.2 The reviews of it, whether favourable or hostile, are in general very encouraging.

The Land Association also has got together a great number of very good adhesions. I only hope it will be possible to keep adherents together who differ so much in the length they intend to go. This can only be done by leaving many important points as open questions for discussion within the Association itself.

One of my working-men correspondents, and the most thoughtful and intelligent of them, Mr. William Wood, of Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, who has lately enrolled himself as a member of the London Woman Suffrage Society, is very desirous of having a public meeting, or, if that should be impossible, a lecture in his borough, and offers to take upon himself the work of making the arrangements; but he considers it a sine qua non that “one at least of the ladies who are the glory and no small part of the strength of the movement, be present to speak to us in its advocacy.” . . .

I have written to propose to Mrs. Fawcett to take up the project;2 if she does not, would it be impossible for you to do so? It would be unfair to Edition: current; Page: [1649] ask you, who have so much on your hands in the central direction of the movement, to work at the outposts when the work can be done by anyone else, but we rely so much on your public spirit that we cannot help looking to you as a reserve when others fail. The cause has now reached a point at which it has become extremely desirable that the ladies who lead the movement should make themselves visible to the public, their very appearance being a refutation of the vulgar nonsense talked about “women’s rights women,” and their manner of looking, moving, and speaking being sure to make a favourable impression from the purely feminine as well as from the human point of view.

I feel highly honoured by having been thought of as a candidate for the anticipated vacancy in the representation of Dudley, notwithstanding my refusal on principle to incur any expense. But I have for the present determined not to reenter Parliament, being of opinion that I can promote my opinions more effectively at this time in the capacity of a writer, than in that of a member of the House of Commons. Again thanking you for the high compliment of your proposal, I am

In deference to your wishes I have taken some days to reconsider the subject of your letter but the result is that I adhere to my resolution of not accepting the Presidentship of the Association.2

Edition: current; Page: [1650]

When I was asked to take the Chair at the first meeting of the Committee, & when Mr Beales & yourself shewed a desire to put my name forward to the public, I distinctly said that it would not suit me to be President, or to take the leading part in the conduct of the Association, and it was on that understanding only that I consented to be Chairman of the Provisional Committee. It is repugnant to me to be ostensibly at the head of any undertaking unless I am prepared to devote my utmost efforts to make it succeed; & the land question notwithstanding its importance is only one of a number of subjects which have a claim on my time & exertions. I therefore do not think it required by or consistent with my duty to devote myself to this one movement even if it were clear, which it is not to me, that I am the fittest person to take the lead in it.

With regard to attending the first public meeting, it would not be impossible for me to do so, at any time not earlier than the latter end of November. But it seems to me quite premature to appoint a public meeting as long as there is the present uncertainty about our pecuniary means. You say that the Education League3 is up & doing & that therefore the Land Association should be up & doing too. But if the newspapers speak truth, the Education League has already raised many thousands of pounds. I think it imprudent to give publicity to our proceedings in any way until we are privately assured of an amount of support which will prevent the possibility of a total break down in the attempt to form a Society. Our first duty is if possible to guard against this. We cannot hold meetings & carry on agitation like the Education League unless we have as much money. We shall need ample donations from our richer members & an annual subscription from all, and until assured of these I think it better not to come before the public.

With regard to the Programme, the reason which led me to suggest a modification of it, has been taken away by the formation of a separate organisation by some of the leaders of the working classes for their own programme.4 If they think the time has come to agitate for their more extreme objects, they will give but a cold support if any support at all, to ours, & it is useless going out of our way to attract them. I myself should differ Edition: current; Page: [1651] from them even as to the waste lands. I should be sorry to see the whole of these farmed out & given up to cultivation. I wish a great part of them to remain in their native wildness & natural beauty. There is little enough beauty in our common life, & we cannot afford to sacrifice what we have. It is in the lands owned by public bodies & charitable institutions that I would try the experiment of state or municipal management.

I wish it clearly understood that if I am present at all at any public meeting it must not be as presiding but merely as one of the speakers.

You are aware of the favour with which the majority of the popular party in Great Britain regard the vote by ballot at parliamentary elections, as a means of restraining bribery and intimidation, and the increased interest which this question has assumed through the recent extension of the suffrage. The writer of the inclosed letter,2 and some of his friends, are anxious to obtain information that can be depended on, respecting the practical working of vote by ballot in the countries in which it exists by law. Their own opinion, like mine, is unfavourable to it; but their desire is to find the truth, whatever it may be; and the vague impressions current in Europe give no real knowledge of the ballot in America even as it exists by law, much less of the mode in which it is actually conducted, and the advantages and disadvantages which are found in practice to attend it. You would oblige me very much, and would do some public service, if you could kindly supply my correspondent with any of the information which he desires, or refer him to any sources from which he could procure it.

The subject on which you have asked my opinion, involves two of the most difficult and embarrassing questions of political morality; the extent and Edition: current; Page: [1654] limits of the right of those who have first taken possession of an unoccupied portion of the earth’s surface, to exclude the remainder of mankind from inhabiting it; and the means which can be legitimately used by the more improved branches of the human species to protect themselves from being hurtfully encroached upon by those of a lower grade in civilisation. The Chinese immigration into America raises both these questions. To furnish a general answer to either of them would be a most arduous undertaking.

Concerning the purely economical view of the subject I entirely agree with you; and it could hardly be better stated and argued than it is in your able article in the New York Tribune.2 That the Chinese immigration, if it attains great dimensions, must be economically injurious to the mass of the present population; that it must diminish their wages, and reduce them to a lower stage of physical comfort and well-being, I have no manner of doubt. Nothing can be more fallacious than the attempts to make out that thus to lower wages is the way to raise them; or that there is any compensation in an economical point of view to those whose labour is displaced, or who are obliged to work for a greatly reduced remuneration. On general principles, this state of things, were it sure to continue, would justify the exclusion of the immigrants, on the ground that with their habits in respect to population, only a temporary good is done to the Chinese people by admitting part of their surplus numbers, while a permanent harm is done to a more civilised and improved portion of mankind.

But there is much also to be said on the other side. Is it justifiable to assume that the character and habits of the Chinese are unsusceptible of improvement? The institutions of the United States are the most potent means that have yet existed of spreading the most important elements of civilisation down to the poorest and most ignorant of the labouring masses. If every Chinese child were compulsorily brought under your school system, or under a still more effective one if possible, and kept under it for a sufficient number of years, would not the Chinese population be in time raised to the level of the American? I believe indeed that hitherto the numbers of Chinese born in America has not been very great: but so long as this is the case—so long (that is) as the Chinese do not come in families & settle, but those who come are mostly men and return to their native country, the evil can hardly reach so great a magnitude as to require that it should be put a stop to by force.

One kind of restrictive measure seems to me not only desirable, but absolutely called for; the most stringent laws against introducing Chinese immigrants as Coolies, i.e. under contracts binding them to the service of particular persons. All such obligations are a form of compulsory labour, that is, of slavery: and though I know that the legal invalidity of such contracts Edition: current; Page: [1655] does not prevent them from being made, I cannot but think that if pains were taken to make it known to the immigrants that such engagements are not legally binding, and especially if it were made a penal offence to enter into them, that mode at least of immigration would receive a considerable check. And it does not seem probable that any other mode, among so poor a population as the Chinese, can attain such dimensions as to compete very injuriously with American labour. Short of that point, the opportunity given to numerous Chinese of becoming familiar with better and more civilised habits of life, is one of the best chances that can be opened up for the improvement of the Chinese in their own country, and one which it does not seem to me that it would be right to withhold from them.

It gave us great pleasure to receive, a short time before we left England for Avignon, the notification of your marriage.2 Pray accept our warm congratulations on that auspicious event, & every possible wish for the happiness present & future of yourself & of the lady who has joined her destiny to yours.

It is long since I have heard from you: I hope that the favour which I am going to ask will procure me that pleasure. A correspondent of mine in Scotland, Mr. D. Watson (6, Teviot Crescent, Hawick)3 and some friends of his, are desirous to obtain authentic information, which is not generally possessed in England, on the mode of operation of Secret Suffrage in the countries where it exists in the election of members of representative bodies. Their opinion, like mine, is unfavourable to secret voting; but their wish is, not to confirm their existing opinion, but to know the truth; what are the means taken in different countries to secure secrecy; how far those means are effective; and in what respect secrecy, so far as secured, is attended with either good or bad effects. Could you furnish from your own knowledge, or point out the means of obtaining, information on these points in the cases of Austria, Hungary, or any German Government? If you could do so it would be a valuable contribution to a subject of great & increasing importance in English politics, and I should myself be sincerely grateful to you for it.

We are most happy to hear that you have had such an interesting holiday2 & that both the weather & your health & spirits were so favourable to enjoyment. I am much obliged to you for your observations on the peasant properties. We must try to find out whether the farms which pleased you so much in North Holland are the property of the farmers.3 With regard to the internal discomfort of the houses in other places, it is probably a consequence & sample of the general habits of the country. In most parts of the Continent the taste for what we call comfort is much less developed than in England: & peasant properties by the prudential and calculating habits which they foster, promote frugality as well as industry (the peasants preferring saving to enjoyment) often exhibit a very meagre state of living when the means are, as in the case you mention of the widow near Darmstadt, ample.4 Helen says too that to understand this subject one must distinguish between comfort & neatness, although neatness is no doubt an essential to comfort in our eyes. There would almost seem something of race in the care for neatness, which Helen says does not follow at all, as one might suppose, the variations of climate. Some Oriental peoples are very neat, as are the Spaniards (in the parts of Spain we have visited) & the Greeks. In Greek & Spanish rooms where the furniture is poor, & there is substantial dirtiness if vermin may so be called the neatness is often charming, & most refreshing to the eye & spirits, while in French rooms of the same class the building will be more solid, the bedding comfortable & irreproachably clean, & yet the dust and untidiness will be repugnant & wretched to an English eye. Some of the same curious differences may be noticed in different parts of Germany, & Helen says that for many years she has tried Edition: current; Page: [1657] to find any general rule which will explain these variations. She is inclined to think that it may perhaps prove that this pleasant tidiness of the home to the eye depends upon whether the women work out of the house or not, & may have nothing to do with race, climate, civilisation or wealth. This however is still a mere hypothesis in her mind.

We too have made an excursion, of about ten days, in the Alps. We established ourselves at the inn on the top of the pass of Mont Cenis, 6000 feet above the sea, & greatly enjoyed walks among the neighbouring heights. We had at first splendid weather but as it seemed to be changing we went off to some little travelled parts of the lower Alps, south of Grenoble where we had again beautiful weather & much enjoyment. We have since had a still pleasanter though shorter excursion in the mountains of the eastern part of our department, in which last excursion we walked upwards of fifty miles in three days. The improvements in our own little place are now nearly completed, but until they are quite finished they continue to give Helen a great deal of troublesome occupation. I have no report to make as yet of work done, except what can hardly be called by that name—bringing up arrears of general reading—but I hope to have better account to give in a little while. About Carlyle I agree both with you & with Hill.5 It is only at a particular stage in one’s mental development that one benefits much by him (to me he was of great use at that stage)6 but one continues to read his best things with little if any diminution of pleasure after one has ceased to learn anything from him.

I had already seen a very brief account in a newspaper,2 of your and Mrs Fawcett’s proceedings at Warwick, and was extremely pleased with both. Edition: current; Page: [1658] We are specially delighted that Mrs Fawcett took the opportunity of speaking for women’s suffrage, and that she thinks seriously of preparing a lecture. What she has already written is a guarantee for its being excellent both in matter and stile, and her person and manner will dispel prejudice and attract adherents wherever she delivers it. I hope that there will be nothing to prevent your going to Stoke in January, which, I imagine, will be as suitable a time for Mr Wood’s purpose as November or December.3 If I may judge from his correspondence, you will find him an interesting and useful person to know: he has thought on a great many important subjects, and very soundly on almost all. What you say about the reception of Mrs Fawcett’s speech at Warwick, and of the book4 at Brighton, is very encouraging. If the working men, in any numbers, take up women’s suffrage, it will get on very fast. We highly approved the course you took and the things you said at Birmingham.5 I, like you, have a rather strong opinion in favour of making parents pay something for their children’s education when they are able, though there are considerable difficulties in authenticating their inability. At all events I would have it left an open question; and because they refused to leave that and other secondary questions open, I did not join the League. But I think you are quite right in overlooking this consideration, and acting with the League, in order to form a strong party in the House for the principle of universal and compulsory unsectarian education.

You will believe how delighted we are that Cairnes is so much recovered, and is able to resume his Lectures. The pamphlet he mentioned, by George Campbell,6 was sent to me by the author after it was printed, but before publication, and I did not know that it was yet published. It appeared to me a most valuable contribution to the subject. The Cobden Club have for once done something useful in asking him to write on the Land question.7 The Land Tenure Reform Association has received a considerable number of good adhesions, but it has not yet raised any money; and it is indispensable to know what it is able to do in this way before attempting to come before the public; for a break down would be much more ignominious, and much more injurious to the cause, after, than before, a public demonstration. My name has very unjustifiably been put forward as President, which I from the first refused to be. I have told Reid [page torn] my name must not be used in Edition: current; Page: [1659] this way, as I cannot be President,8 although I am willing to do anything I can as a member. I do not know whether to be glad or sorry for the separate organisation which has been started by some leaders of the working classes for a much more radical alteration of the land laws.9 The furious and declamatory violence of their Resolutions and some of their speeches, seems to shew that they would have been a very intractable element in the other Association and that it is well rid of them. One thing I see clearly; that there will be more difficulty than ever in preserving the commons. The working class speakers are filled with exaggerated ideas of the value of the waste lands for cultivation, and apparently do not care at all for the preservation of natural beauty; and if they make any way with their agitation, the landlords will throw over the commons to save their estates. Our best chance of avoiding this will be the progress of education in all classes; and unfortunately it is much easier to improve education in quantity than in quality. It is no new thing that all good depends on work, but in the present state of matters the work of the more advanced minds, over and above its inherent difficulties, has the additional one that it is, in a certain degree, working against time. But there would be little to fear if there were a tolerable number who worked with the energy and spirit that you do. Women’s suffrage will help us in this as in so many other things, for women will be much more unwilling than men to submit to the expulsion of all beauty from common life. I am Dear Mr Fawcett

I have received your letter dated the 18th inst. I need hardly say that I sympathize in your preference of literary to mercantile occupation; but all experience proves that of these two, considered as professions, the latter alone is to be depended on as a means of subsistence & that the former can only be prudently taken up by persons who are already in independent Edition: current; Page: [1660] circumstances. It is a rare good fortune if an author can support himself by his pen, unless as an editor or sub editor of a newspaper or other periodical; & I suppose there is not in our day a single instance in which it has been done by poetry of any kind. All my experience of life confirms the wisdom of the advice which Coleridge, in his Biographia Literaria,2 gives to writers even of the greatest genius: to let, if possible, their regular business, on which they rely for support, be something foreign to their favourite pursuits, reserving these as the consolation of their leisure hours. In that case, success, & the favourable estimation of others, are not a matter of necessity to them; if they produce anything worthy of being remembered, they can wait for it to be appreciated, or can be content with the pleasure of the occupation itself. My own conviction is that to be independent of immediate success is almost an absolute condition of being able to do anything that greatly deserves to succeed. Many meritorious literary men would feel themselves saved from lifelong disappointment if they could exchange their position for one of assured though moderate income in the vocation which you are so desirous of quitting for theirs.

With regard to the publication of your work I hardly know what advice to give. It is easy to obtain a publisher if you are able & willing to take on yourself the risk of pecuniary loss. But it is difficult to find a bookseller who is willing to venture anything on the success of a dramatic poem; there are so many writers of dramatic poems, & so few buyers of them; & whatever may be the merit of yours, there is no certainty of its becoming known to the public. Even if an author has friends who are connected as writers or editors with the literary periodicals, which people consult to know what books to order from Mudie’s3 or the circulating libraries, he has but a precarious chance, for people have learnt to distrust the praises of periodicals. Authors often build hopes on recommendations to a publisher from some person who is considered a good judge but these are so often given from mere good nature that they carry little weight; nor do publishers consider the merit of a work as a sufficient guarantee of its pecuniary success. For myself I have no means of aiding you in any of these ways. Even if authority carried greater weight than it does with publishers, I am not an authority on these subjects.

What I say to you I have said to many others who have made applications to me of the same kind, & I sincerely regret that I have nothing more satisfactory to offer.

In short I see but two alternatives for a young author. He can test the probable popularity of his work by offering it to publishers & editors who Edition: current; Page: [1661] whether rightly or not are practically the judges of this, & if their decision is unfavourable he must either resign literary work or content himself with working merely for the love of his work accompanied by any such hopes as he may still venture to entertain of better success in the future.

I thank you & Mrs Barnard heartily for your kindness to Mr Kyllmann.2 I hardly know your equal in eagerness to do kind offices to your friends or to your friends’ friends, while from your manner of conferring a favour any one would suppose that you were receiving one.

I have not written anything on the subject of police. What you have heard of is doubtless a private letter to one of my active supporters in Westminster,3 who asked my opinion on the proposal to place “habitual criminals” under police surveillance, a proposal since embodied in an Act of Parliament4 some of the provisions of which appear to me very objectionable. The letter though signed by me was written by my daughter, who has thought more & to greater purpose on these questions than I have. It was not intended for publication, but was sent without my permission to the newspapers. The date of the letter was December 14. 1868, but I have not a copy of any newspaper containing it & do not remember the date [of] publication.

The multiplication of casts of the finest works of ancient sculpture is very useful as one among many means of educating the public eye.5 Both in art & in nature, a certain degree of familiarity is necessary not merely to the intellectual appreciation but to the enjoyment of the higher kinds of beauty: Every one who takes pleasure in a simple tune has the capacity of fully enjoying Weber & Beethoven, but very often he derives little or no pleasure from a first hearing of them. It is a great mistake to think that children are not benefitted by living & growing up among models of beauty. They are on the contrary more benefitted than any one else, though not, at the time, conscious of the benefit. I can trace a great influence in my own development Edition: current; Page: [1662] to the accident of having passed several years of my boyhood in one of the few old abbeys which are still inhabited,6 instead of a mean & graceless modern house, & having at the same time & place been familiar with tapestries from Raphael’s cartoons, which peopled my imagination with graceful & dignified forms of human beings. There is a great want of this training of the perceptions & taste in our modern societies; but it is not by any one help or stimulus that the want can be supplied. The great desideratum in America—& though not quite in an equal degree, I may say in England too—is the improvement of the higher education. America surpasses all countries in the amount of mental cultivation which she has been able to make universal; but a high average level is not everything; there are wanted, I do not say a class, but a great number of persons of the highest degree of cultivation which the accumulated acquisitions of the human race make it possible to give them. From such persons, in a community that knows no distinction of ranks, civilisation would rain down its influences upon the remainder of society, & the higher faculties having been highly cultivated in the most advanced part of the public would give forth products & create an atmosphere that would produce a high average of the same faculties in a people so well prepared in point of general intelligence as the people of the United States.

I have given an introduction to you, and to two or three of my other friends in America, to a correspondent of mine in Scotland, Mr. D. Watson,7 of Hawick, who is anxious to obtain information that can be depended on (but is under the necessity of asking for it by letter) respecting the practical operation of Vote by Ballot in the United States. The example of America is often cited in favour of secret voting & sometimes against it, but there is a great deficiency of real information as to how it operates in America & even as to whether there is real secrecy at all. My correspondent & some of his friends are like myself unfavourable to secret voting but they are anxious to obtain whatever light American experience can throw on the practical question.

I have received your letter of the 28th which gave me much pleasure & I congratulate you on the wise resolution which you have formed. Edition: current; Page: [1663] At your age you have a long time before you & whether or not you are destined to have what is called a “successful life,” the feeling early acquired that you can do without it is one of the greatest blessings which it is possible to carry through life. With your tastes & pursuits you have a source of permanent enjoyment independent of fortune & by the disinterested cultivation of your mental powers you may become capable of rendering services to the world for which it would be imprudent to rely on its making you any adequate pecuniary return.

It gave us great pleasure to receive a letter from you dated from London, and to know that you are able not only to live in England but to lecture this winter. Even if your health has not sensibly improved since you arrived in England, it is very much that it should have recovered sufficiently before that time to restore you to active life, and that it should maintain the improvement under less favourable circumstances of climate. Your class, I believe, is as large if not larger than has ever been obtained by a Professor of Political Economy in University College. The whole career of that Institution is a melancholy proof of the rarity of any desire in the middle classes of London to give the benefit of a good education to their sons. They evidently set no value on any instruction not strictly professional, and I am afraid the manufacturing districts of England, though in some respects more active-minded are, on this point, not at all superior to London. In Scotland alone a higher instruction is valued, probably because the teaching in the elementary schools has been so managed as to lead up to it; which should be a lesson to those who have to construct a national system of primary schools.

It is very kind of you to feel so much interest about my health. There was no cause of uneasiness from the attack I had at Paris,2 after the first few hours. Being taken in time, it was soon conquered, and when I left Paris for England a few days afterwards I was in my usual health, and have since remained so. My daughter also, though still liable to a return of her headaches, is much stronger and better than when we arrived here.

Your letter made me rather ashamed of myself from the belief it shewed that I must be very busy. Since I have been here this time, I may almost call Edition: current; Page: [1664] myself idle, having done little but to bring up old arrears of general reading. And I am seldom for long together too busy to spare time for anything you ask me to do, especially anything so pleasant as to read any of your writings. I beg that you will never allow any scruple to prevent your applying to me when you think I can be in any way useful: and with respect to the very interesting book you think of writing (I well remember how highly I thought of its precursor)3 I should be only too happy to read in the MS. either any part or the whole. Indeed, if I were to see all of it that relates to the French political economists as well as to Comte,4 I should be better able to compare your impression respecting them with my own. I believe we think pretty much alike about them. French philosophic writers seem to me decidedly inferior in closeness and precision of thought to the best English, and more in the habit of paying themselves with phrases and abstractions. The French political economists share largely in this defect. It should be remembered however, that there is a much greater number of them than of English, unless, to make up the equality we descend to English writers so bad as almost to turn the average the other way. There are also more exceptions than you perhaps know to the general vagueness and looseness of thought of French economists. Besides Say,5 and Turgot,6 of which last Courcelle-Seneuil says with some reason that it is harder to say what of the truths of the science he did not anticipate than what he did, there are some now living who have formed themselves very much upon the stricter and more precise English model: Joseph Garnier7 especially, in his treatise on Political Economy. Garnier is an exception to their false conception of the method of the science. Courcelle-Seneuil, whom I just mentioned, and who has written a book of considerable merit (Traité Théorique et Pratique d’Economie Politique)8 is also, to some extent, an exception. A. E. Cherbuliez of Geneva (who lately died) published in 1862 a “Précis de la Science Economique et de ses Principales Applications” which I thought favourably of. The last two of these treatises I have here, and can send to you if you would like to see them. I Edition: current; Page: [1665] think both Reybaud9 and Michel Chevalier10 unfavourable specimens of French economists as to close thinking, and the former is besides of a narrow and prejudiced school. Bastiat11 shines as a dialectician, and his reasonings on free trade are as strictly scientific as those of any one; but his posthumous work (Harmonies Economiques)12 is written with a parti pris of explaining away all the evils which are the stronghold of Socialists, against whom the book is directed. The Journal des Economistes13 you will find in the London Library. A course of that gives a more correct idea than anything else, of the general characteristics of French economists: the more, as they occasionally carry on controversies with one another in its pages, which bring out their several types of thought. They are divided by two broad lines: into Malthusians and anti-Malthusians, and into Utilitarians and anti-Utilitarians. This last distinction extends even to political economy, in consequence of the prevailing French habit of appealing to intuitive principles of droit even on economic subjects.

Your news of the Fawcetts is pleasant. I have a high opinion of Mrs Fawcett’s capabilities, and am always glad to hear of any fresh exercise of them.14 Respecting the Irish land question, I hardly think it possible that you and I should not agree entirely, when discussion has thrown sufficient light upon the details of the question. I feel, with you, that the reasons for fixity of tenure apply chiefly to ryots, or labourer-farmers and not to capitalist farmers, for whom leases suffice; and I feel, also, that by making these last actual proprietors, a fresh agrarian question may be raised up on the part of the labourers whom they employ. The chief difficulty I feel is the practical one of having different laws for large and for small tenants; though I myself, in my speech in 1868,15 suggested as a possible expedient, to make a distinction between arable and grazing farms. A propos, there has been a call from Ireland for a reprint of my two speeches on the land question,16 together with the chapters on that subject in my Political Economy;17 and this is now being Edition: current; Page: [1666] printed.18 Is it not curious that the plan in my pamphlet19 is almost always spoken of as a simple proposal to buy out the landlords and hold all the land as the property of the State? though it is palpable to every one who looks at the pamphlet that my proposal was simply a permanent tenure at a fixed rent, and that I only offered to any landlord who disliked this, the option of giving up his land to the Government instead. Mr George Campbell sent me his paper20 before it was published, and I quite agree with you as to its great merit. He has since informed me that he has published it in an enlarged form, and has sent me a copy. This is at Blackheath, and will be in the first parcel that comes.

With our kind regards to Mrs Cairnes, whose improved health it gave us great pleasure to hear of, I am

The education movement is going forward with a rapidity which justifies the most sanguine hopes, and the two great principles of the National Education League, that elementary education should be compulsory, and the State Education should be undenominational, are striking root deeply into the mind of the nation. Having held the first opinion for many years, and the last always, I need not say how heartily I rejoice at the progress they are making towards general recognition.

I will send the Courcelle Seneuil and Cherbuliez2 almost immediately, to your Hastings address. I by no means answer for their view of the science, or Edition: current; Page: [1667] Garnier’s either,3 as unexceptionable at all points; but it is certainly better than that of the French writers of the present day with whom you appear to be best acquainted, and I think it necessary for you to know them in order to form a just judgment of the contemporary French school.

I look forward with great pleasure to reading any portion you like to shew me of your new book, or indeed of any book of yours.

I expect to receive Mr Campbell’s book4 in a few days. In the meantime, there is a letter of his in the Daily News of last Tuesday, Nov. 30,5 containing, as I gather, proposals somewhat more specific than those in his book, and among other things an attempt, though an inadequate one, to lay down principles to guide the public arbitrator in determining what is a fair rent. That difficulty is inherent in all plans, however moderate, which offer any greater security than at present to the tenure of the occupier. But, after all, a question cannot be insoluble which, in point of fact, has to be resolved by every landlord who lets his land on any other principle than the (in Ireland) ruinous one of competition. I should say that the rent which a public arbitrator ought to consider a fair one, is the highest which any respectable tenant, capitalist or peasant, could afford to give, consistently with proper cultivation of the land according to the standard of good farming received in the country, and this, though difficult to define in general terms, could certainly be determined with considerable accuracy in each particular case, by an experienced land agent or manager, such as many in Ireland are. What do you think of Campbell’s line of demarcation between contract and status tenures? In case you have not seen the letter, I transcribe the passage. “All agricultural tenures in which the landlord has erected the necessary buildings and fences and made all the considerable improvements, and in respect of which no practice of selling the claims of the tenant or compensating him for loss of occupancy exists, shall be distinguished as contract tenures, and shall not be subject to the interference of the Commission. All other agricultural holdings shall be designated Status tenures.”

I should very much regret not to be at the Club when your question is discussed.6 I do not expect to be at the February meeting, and am not certain about the March. I may say that the April meeting is the only one this year at which I feel confident of being present.

The “Chapters and Speeches”7 will be out shortly. The reports of the speeches are taken from Hansard. The first of the two, that of 1866, was Edition: current; Page: [1668] printed verbatim from my MS. That of 1868, not being a written speech could not be given so exactly, but the newspaper report was carefully corrected for Hansard by myself, and is tolerably adequate.

The Tracy you speak of is the metaphysician Destutt-Tracy,8 and his Political Economy forms one of the four volumes of his Idéologie,9 which by an unlucky and rather strange chance I have never read, though I know it to be worth reading. What are the merits of the political economy portion I do not know. It is probably good for its time, but, I suppose, behind hand now.

The news contained in your letter is indeed a subject of congratulation.2 What is to be done will certainly prove the first step in the admission of women to the University, & the most certain & speedy step too. We do not see any suggestions to offer you, as the plan seems in all respects all that can be desired. Will you let us know some further particulars about the Scholarships as soon as they are decided, as we shd like to contribute a little towards them.

There is no harm, & some good, in any number of persons attending merely for amusement provided that the lectures are not adapted for them but for serious students. This would be very much guaranteed by the lecturers’ holding some amount of examination at every lecture, as is the practice, I believe, of the Scotch professors. This would have a very good effect both on teachers & pupils, keeping before the minds of both that serious work is intended. No one need be examined without her own consent.

You have rightly judged that I should sympathize with an attempt to raise the standard of free and unfettered discussion on religious as on all other subjects; involving necessarily the same unlimited liberty of disbelief as of belief. Whether that attempt is made by professing Christians, or by persons who do not take that name, it is equally welcome to me; so long as, whichever side they take, they are willing and able to do justice, both logically and historically, to the other side. There is nothing in your letter and Prospectus that tends to give any other than a favorable idea of the spirit in which you have set about your undertaking. But to come before the public as giving what would be sure to be construed, however untruly, and however contrary to your intention, as a kind of voucher or guarantee for the merits of the projected newspaper, would, as it seems to me, be only suitable in those who have much greater means of knowledge than I possess of the manner in which it is likely to be carried on, both in respect of opinion and otherwise. I am, therefore, unable to comply with your wish that I should write you a letter to be inserted in your journal, and must content myself with this private expression of my good wishes.

I should have reason to be ashamed of myself if your name were unknown to me. I am not likely to forget one who stood in the Edition: current; Page: [1670] front rank of the women’s rights movement in its small beginnings, and helped it forward so vigorously in its early and most difficult stages. You and Mrs Mott2 have well deserved to live to see the cause in its present prosperity, and may now fairly hope to see a commencement of victory in some of the States at least. I have received many kind and cordial invitations to visit the United States, and were I able, the great convention to which you invite me would certainly be a strong inducement to do so. My dislike to a sea voyage would not of itself prevent me, if there were not a greater obstacle—want of time. I have many things to do yet, before I die, and some months (it is not worth while going to America for less) is a great deal to give at my time of life, especially as it would not, like ordinary travelling, be a time of mental rest, but something very different. I regret my inability the less, as the friends of the cause in America are quite able to dispense with direct personal co-operation from England. The really important co-operation is the encouragement we give one another by the success of each in our own country. For Great Britain this success is much greater than appears on the surface, for our people, as you know, shrink much more timidly than Americans from attracting public notice to themselves; and the era of great public meetings on this subject has not arrived in our country, though it may be near at hand. I need hardly say how much I am gratified by the mode in which my name was mentioned in the National Convention at Newport, and still more at the tribute to the memory of my dear wife,3 who from early youth was devoted to this cause, and had done invaluable service to it as the inspirer and instructor of others, even before writing the essay4 so deservedly eulogized in your resolutions. To her I owe the far greater part of whatever I have myself been able to do for the cause, for though from my boyhood I was a convinced Edition: current; Page: [1671] adherent of it, on the ground of justice, it was she who taught me to understand the less obvious bearings of the subject, and its close connection with all the great moral and social interests of the cause. I am, dear Madam, very sincerely yours,

The plan of Industrial Partnerships seems to me highly worthy of encouragement as uniting some of the advantages of cooperation with the principal advantages of capitalist management. We should hope, indeed, ultimately to arrive at a state of industry in which the workpeople as a body will either themselves own the capital, or hire it from its owners. Industrial Partnerships, however, are not only a valuable preparation for that state, & transition to it, but might probably for a long time exist by the side of it with great advantage; if only because their competition would prevent cooperative associations of workmen from degenerating, as I grieve to say they often do, into close joint stock companies in which the workmen who founded them keep all the profits to themselves.

The proposal of Messrs Brewster is in some important respects a considerable improvement on the English Industrial Partnerships of which I have any knowledge; because it takes the employés themselves into council to determine the share of profit to which they shall be admitted, instead of fixing its amount by the sole will of the employers, and because it gives to a council elected by the employés, an important share in the government of the workshops, even to the extent of allowing them, by a two-thirds majority, to overrule the wishes of the employers.

I have no such knowledge of the details of the subject as would enable me to make any suggestions that it would be useful to you to receive. But I will shew your letter & the printed plan of Messrs Brewster to those of my friends who have more information on the subject & are more capable of making Edition: current; Page: [1672] useful suggestions than I am myself, especially Mr Hughes and Mr Ludlow, both of whom have had an intimate connexion with Cooperation in England almost from its infancy. Only one point in Messrs Brewster’s plan occurs to me as open to criticism: that which provides that those who leave the employment voluntarily shall forfeit their share of profits for the current year. It seems to me that the Boards to whom so many other powers are entrusted, might be the judges to decide whether in the particular circumstances of each case the share of profit shd be forfeited or not.

One of my correspondents in the United States has sent me a list, which I inclose, of persons in America whom he believes to be sufficiently well disposed to the Westminster Review to make it worth while to send them copies of a paper inviting support. The difficulty, he says, will be that the Review is reissued in America in a cheap form.2 But he says “we all hope” that the Review will not go down.

I had not the smallest idea of implying any negligence in you; but in mentioning the possible causes of loss, it was necessary to include that one, as you had not mentioned to me before that you had posted the petition yourself.

I am glad to hear that Mr Melly has declared in favour of Women’s Suffrage. He is a valuable man, and an acquisition to the cause.

Edition: current; Page: [1673]

Your questions2 did not by any means appear to me as absurd or trivial. On the contrary, they shewed that you practise and require accuracy in a matter of business. That three names of one family should be signed in one handwriting is so common and so trifling a circumstance that nobody is likely to notice it nor to draw any unfavourable inference from it if noticed.

I hope you may be able to arrange with Mrs Fawcett to deliver a lecture in your borough.3 She seems quite willing to do so if she can make it accord with her arrangements.

The two copies of my little book4 would be extremely well bestowed on the Libraries you mention, and I should have relied on your judgment had you bestowed them without consulting me. If you would like any more copies I shall be very happy to send them to you.

I do not know who is the Secretary of the Labour Representation League,5 but a note to Mr George Howell, 9 Buckingham Street, Strand, London W.C. would probably procure for you that and any other information about the League. He is perhaps himself the Secretary, and in any case, is sure to know all about it.

I do not possess a copy of “Essays and Reviews”.6 My copy was lent many years ago, and has not been returned to me. If I can procure it again from the friend to whom I lent it, I will send it to you.

Your appreciation of the importance of the question of the equality of women is most just. I shall be glad to receive your promised letter relating to National Education. I am Dear Sir

I cannot too much congratulate you on such a paper as that of Mr. Freeman.2 I honour him for having broken ground against field sports, a thing I Edition: current; Page: [1674] have been often tempted to do myself, but having so many unpopular causes already on my hands, thought it wiser not to provoke fresh hostility. He seems to have strongly coerced his habitually impetuous feelings and been studiously calm. It is a sign of the powerful effect he produces that the Daily Telegraph at once took up the cause with evident earnestness,3 though with timidity and reserve.

I beg that you will express to the Committee of the Birmingham and Midland Counties Institute2 my high sense of the honour they have conferred on me by their invitation to become their President for next year. I have been obliged, however, to decline all proposals of that nature, having really not time to prepare an Inaugural Address. The Rectorship of St Andrews is the only exception I have made. I am

I am most highly honoured by the message which I have received this morning from your Royal Highness but I regret to say that being at present under medical treatment I am not in a condition to avail myself of the honour intended me. Indeed I have scarcely the use of either hand & have difficulty in even writing these few words.

I am, Madam, with the greatest respect Your Royal Highness’s faithful servant

A son Altesse Royale

la Princesse Royale de Prusse

Edition: current; Page: [1676]

1870

The Pall Mall Gazette containing Mr Maine’s criticism of your article2 reached me duly. Though some of Mr Maine’s strong points come out in it, on the whole it is hardly worthy of him. I need scarcely tell you that what he principally objects to in your article constitutes in my eyes its greatest value. I have never seen the ethical distinction between property in land and in moveables so thoroughly and clearly worked out, and the philosophical limits both of the property doctrine and of the counter-doctrine so well stated. And though Maine goes along with the practical conclusion, I am disappointed that he does not see the value of this exposition, or that the conservative instinct is so strong in him as to make him jealous of bringing the foundations of property under discussion. Surely nothing can be more strange than one of his arguments for abstaining from stirring up the subject, viz. that the present ideas of property are wrong not in one direction only but in both, as witness the disrespect for patent rights, and for copyright! Surely that is only the more reason why the real foundations of the question should, instead of should not, be insisted on.

It is a real and great pleasure to read such writing as yours. Very few writers have a skill comparable to yours in making the exposition of principles at once clear, persuasive, and attractive. With regard to the practical conclusions of the article, Mr Campbell’s suggestions,3 with your additions and modifications, are without doubt the utmost of what there is any chance of obtaining at present from Parliament. The danger is, as you observe, that we shall be put off with something far short of this. If the plan is adopted, and gets into operation, no one will be better pleased than I shall be. But I retain all my doubts whether, at the point which Irish demands and expectations Edition: current; Page: [1677] have now reached, any measure which makes the amount of rent and the grounds of eviction in each individual case depend on the decision of a public authority, can settle the question, or can possibly be final. Every possible suspicion will be thrown on the intentions of the Commission,4 and every possible hostile criticism will be made on its decisions; and all whom it suffers to be evicted, or whom it requires to pay an increase of rent, will think that they ought to have had fixity of tenure at a valuation made once for all. But it is of no use grumbling at the inevitable. Fixity of tenure cannot be carried at a high step; and it is important that the intermediate measure should be the best possible, as I think yours is.

I hope Courcelle Seneuil and Cherbuliez,5 which I had been too long in sending, have long since reached you. I hope still more that your health improves. It is already a great thing that so much of your working power is restored. One can hardly exaggerate the value of minds which keep up their thinking as time and events advance, instead of doing it all in the first few years after entering into active life. There are too few of them.

I take the liberty of inclosing to you the newspaper report2 of a matter in which I feel a painful interest & in which I am anxious to obtain the aid of your influence towards mitigating the hardship of what seems to me an extremely hard case. On the 24th of Decr a policeman named Wm Smith was charged before Mr Benson3 the magistrate with an assault upon a labouring man. The evidence proved that the policeman saw the man Edition: current; Page: [1678] knock down a woman (his wife as it turned out) in the street at one o’clock in the morning & interfered for her protection, & in doing so, struck the man with his staff—which assault on the man, Mr Benson said was “unprovoked, brutal & unjustifiable” & sentenced the policeman to a month’s imprisonment & hard labour. I learn from enquiries which I have since caused to be made, that the man, though of unblemished character & 3½ years service has been dismissed from the force & deprived of his livelihood.

Now the only thing in which this poor man had exceeded his duty—the only point in which his conduct was not meritorious—was the blow with his truncheon & in that he did what any man, not a police officer, might justly have been proud of doing but which a policeman shd not have done if he was able to take the man into custody by a less employment of force; which however is uncertain, as the man was evidently in an excited & violent state.

I am not a partisan of the police, on the contrary I greatly distrust them & think that magistrates rely too much on their evidence & often treat instances of bribery, perjury & other highly criminal conduct on their part with most undue lenity. But on this very account, can there be a worse lesson to the police or to the public, than that when so many are retained in the force after flagrant misconduct one poor man against whom there is no other charge is dismissed for a little excess of zeal in protecting a woman against gross ill treatment? Policemen will think twice before they will interfere again to protect men’s wives, or any other women against brutality when they find that any hurt they inflict on a brute of this description is declared from the seat of justice to be not only “brutal & unjustifiable” but “unprovoked,” knocking down a woman in the street being no provocation to a bystander, even to an appointed & paid preserver of the peace—that in short a woman is a creature whom it is safe to knock down but most dangerous to defend from being knocked down by another man.

The policeman’s sentence will shortly expire & he will be released from prison. Would it be impossible to prevail upon the Home Office to restore him to the force? He has surely been punished enough for the worst that he can be charged with—overzeal in the performance of an important duty. I think it would be possible to get a well signed Memorial presented to the Home Office, praying for his reinstatement; but it would be better that it shd be done by the spontaneous act of the Home Secretary,4 as it might perhaps be, if you would interest yourself in the matter. I write by this post to Sir John Coleridge5 & Mr Russell Gurney6 & would write to Mr Bruce if my acquaintance with him was sufficient to warrant it.

There is a subject in which I very much wish to interest you. It is a police case, reported under the head of “Thames” in the Daily News of Dec. 25. The policeman William Smith, who was sentenced by Mr Benson to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour for, at the worst, using an unnecessary degree of violence against a man whom he saw knock down a woman in the street at one o’clock in the morning, has, as I have learnt by private inquiry, been dismissed from the force and deprived of his livelihood. The contrast between the manner in which perjury and other gross criminality on the part of policemen are continually passed over by magistrates, and this extreme severity for an act which would be honourable to anybody but a policeman, and in him was nothing worse than a slight excess of laudable zeal in the performance of a duty in which the police are much oftener culpably remiss than overzealous, must make a very great impression on the minds of policemen, who will learn from it to be still more careful for the future how they interfere to protect a woman from ill usage by a man. The magistrate had not a word of blame for the brutal husband, but declared the blow struck by the constable to be “unprovoked, brutal, and unjustifiable.” Be it observed that at the time the policeman struck the blow, he probably did not even so much as know that the woman was the wife of the man who was assaulting her but simply interfered against a man who was in the act of knocking down a woman in the public streets. As the poor man’s punishment is now drawing to a close, if the Daily News would say something in favour of restoring him to the force,2 it might greatly aid the attempt I am making to bring influence to bear upon the Home Secretary for that purpose.

I think you have done wisely in writing to Washington & in accepting the correspondence of the New York Tribune. Will you pardon me for saying that I think you are likely to be much sooner recognized as a man of ability through what you may do in this last capacity, (if it suits you to make yourself known as the writer) than by the profoundest philosophical treatise that it is possible to write? because there are so many more people competent to judge of the activity shewn. In some respects even your larger works would have more chance of giving you a reputation than the one you are now thinking of, since jurisprudence being a special subject, a systematic work on any branch of it has to some extent the advantage of being judged by experts, while Logic & Method are at once everybody’s business & nobody’s.

I have no fault to find with the title of your proposed book.2 I think it quite allowable either to treat Logic as coextensive with Method, or Method as a whole of which Logic is a part: the latter is more conformable to my own use of the words. But I am not nearly so confident as you seem to be that I shall like your book. Ability it will not want, nor system & concatenation: but I suspect that your “method” & mine are radically different, & I gather from what you say that in order to agree with your views, I shall have to abandon the greater part of my own. It may be that you have made discoveries which supersede all previous writers on logic from Aristotle downwards & change the whole face of the subject: if so, you will probably be appreciated fifty years after your death. You may have done all this, & I may not be able to see it: if I do, I think I can depend upon myself for being ready to confess & proclaim it; but even that would be but a very little way towards success. Byron might rise one morning & find himself famous, but Byron was a lord, & besides, what he wrote were trivialities which anybody could understand: and when a lord or a rich man gets praised for his writings it is not because of the means which his title or his wealth gives him of making their merits known; the homage is to the title or riches themselves, & he is praised as a writer because that is the form of praise he is supposed to like. Publishers look only to the saleable: there is little or no public for philosophical treatises (unless indeed they can get into the Universities) & Edition: current; Page: [1681] books of any profundity are now generally written by men who have other occupations & means of subsistence & who, contented to get their books into print, can wait any length of time for recognition. As regards myself, unless I am completely converted to your views & become a disciple, there is little that I can do to help you. Old & intimate friends of my own whom both on personal & on public grounds I am most desirous to assist, are unable to get their writings published. No opinion from me will make a publisher think that a book on a dry subject is saleable: but if you can make yourself, by other means, independent & known, or even only independent, you may be able to risk it yourself & try the chance.

The subject of your letter of the 3rd is one which I have much considered, and in which I feel great interest, and the result of the consideration is that I greatly deprecate any extension of the Contagious Diseases Act,2 and should highly approve of its repeal. I do not think the abuses of power by the police mere accidents which could be prevented. I think them the necessary consequences of any attempt to carry out such a plan thoroughly. If once examination is made other than voluntary the police must try to prevent evasion of it, and this at once opens the door to innocent mistakes on the part of the police, and makes it necessary to entrust them with power over women which no men are fit to have. I am opposed to the principle of the Act. I believe the medical efficacy of it to be doubtful, and I believe it to be impossible to carry it out without a degree of oppression which would more than overbalance any advantages that could be gained. Of course, in saying this, I look to the female population as well as the male, and strike the balance of advantages to the whole. I may as well say that I think this oppression does exist in France, and is responsible for a state of things among all classes far worse than exists in England. Nor do I think the indirect evils of this kind Edition: current; Page: [1682] of registration to be despised. The interpretation certain to be put upon regulations of this description, even if entirely false, is so mischievous that a very great balance of well-ascertained practical good effects would not, perhaps, be sufficient to compensate for it. To fancy that calling this objection a sentimental one at all invalidates it is merely childish, for, assuredly, men’s sentiments have a great deal to do in regulating their conduct; and no law can be a good one which gives a bad direction to men’s sentiments.

Allow me to introduce to you Monsieur Georges d’Eichthal.2 His father, Monsieur Gustave d’Eichthal, of Paris, is well known as a thinker and writer on many important questions of politics and social science, and is one of the men for whose purposes as well as for his abilities and knowledge I have the greatest respect. He and his brother M. Adolphe d’Eichthal, who is the head of one of the principal banking houses of Paris, are the oldest friends I have in France. M. Georges d’Eichthal, who has passed some time in learning business at Manchester, is now going to enter into the employment of Messrs Elder and Co. of Glasgow. Any kindness you could shew him would be a great advantage to him and obligation to me, and from what I know of him I feel sure that he would do credit to your good offices. I am my dear Sir

I am much obliged to you for your interesting letter on the Colonial question, and all the more, as your early departure2 will prevent me from having any opportunity of talking over with you the new aspects of the subject.

The causes you mention are, no doubt, those which have chiefly contributed to the indifference of official people in England about retaining the colonies. I suspect that separation would still be a great shock to the general English public, though they justly dislike being taxed for the maintenance of the connexion. For my own part, I think a severance of it would be no advantage, but the contrary, to the world in general, and to England in particular; and though I would have the colonies understand that England would not oppose a deliberate wish on their part to separate, I would do nothing to encourage that wish, except telling them that they must be at the charge of any wars of their own provoking, and that though we should defend them against all enemies brought on them by us, in any other case we should only protect them in a case of extremity such as is not at all likely to arise. I have always thought, however, that we ought to have softened the transition in the case of New Zealand by guaranteeing a loan to enable the colony to maintain for a few years a sufficient force of its own raising, without taking away the industrious population from the labours on which the very existence of the colony depends.

I do not see my way to any practicable mode of federal government for communities so widely scattered over the world. And I have attended sufficiently to colonial affairs to be aware that the colonies will not allow us to cast out our paupers into them. But emigration of able bodied agricultural labourers who are not paupers, I suppose they would welcome, and this would be very useful to us. Our having given up the unoccupied lands to the colonial government creates many difficulties. I thought, at the time, that it was an error; that the lands ought to have been regarded as the common inheritance of the whole people, the United Kingdom and the colonies taken together; the first comers having no just claim to the exclusive disposal of more than they could themselves occupy. But in this matter, jacta est alea, and we have only to make the best arrangement we can with the colonists for the reception of such emigrants as they are willing to take.

Edition: current; Page: [1686]

I had the pleasure of being introduced to Sir George Grey3 a short time ago, at a meeting on the subject of Landed Tenure, and I shall always be glad to know his opinions on a subject of which he has such extensive knowledge as Colonial Government and to compare notes with him on anything that occurs to myself.

The Canadian land transaction mentioned in your letter received today, is entirely a case of coproprietorship similar to tenant right.

With every good wish for the prosperity and happiness of yourself and your family, I am

I have delayed very long to thank you for kindly sending me your book2 the reason being that I have only just now found time to read it. Nothing can be more laudable than your purpose in writing the book—that of inspiring greater respect for the people of India in the minds of those who are appointed to govern them. That respect for the most part exists in the experienced men who know the natives from a long course of service in India; but nothing can be more disgusting than the feelings & demeanour towards them of numbers of the raw young Englishmen who go out & I am afraid this is an increasing evil since the substitution of the Queen’s army3 who detest the country and only remain a few years in it, for a force Edition: current; Page: [1687] of which the officers passed their whole career in India, & since the great increase of private adventurers, who are not even under that imperfect control from superiors to which the military, & the civil officers of government are subject.

I think you have done good service by putting within reach of the English public, in the compass of a single work, so much knowledge, both in the shape of information & of specimens, of the thoughts & intellectual productions of the Hindoos. Opinions will differ as to the merits of these productions, & of the state of civilization which they indicate; but they are an authentic & interesting product of the human mind; they deserve to be known, & any one may now know where to find such a selection from them as is sufficient to give a correct general notion of their kind & quality. This could not, as far as I know, have been obtained before, without at least dipping into many books.

You ask me for information respecting the administrative capacity shown by so many ladies of ruling families in India & especially whether these ladies are Hindoos or Mahomedans. They are almost all Hindoos. The case can seldom arise in a Mussulman principality, as by Mahomedan law the mother is not regent for her minor son, whereas among Hindoos the mother by birth or adoption is regent of right. One of the most remarkable however of these ladies, the late Sekunder Begum of Bhopal,4 was a Mahomedan. She was the only child of the ruler of the country, & at his death, according to the custom of the people she could transmit the chiefship to her husband but could not exercise it herself: she was however so much the stronger mind & the most popular too that the people obeyed her in preference to her husband & after his death which was an early one she was allowed to govern the country at first nominally for her daughter, but latterly in her own right. She was a most energetic, prudent, & just ruler, & her daughter who has now succeeded her, & who has been carefully trained by her to public business, is expected to tread in her footsteps. Her own mother too was a remarkable woman. As the Native States were in my department at the India House I had opportunities of knowing all that was known about the manner in which they were governed & during many years by far the greater number of instances of vigorous frugal & skilful administration which came to my knowledge were by Ranees and Raees as regents for minor chiefs.

My daughter has not yet had time to read your book, but she looks forward to doing so with pleasure & begs to be kindly remembered to you.

I do not feel entitled to proffer my opinion unasked to Mr Odger on a point on which you say he has not made up his mind, & I do not like to urge upon him any particular course of action during his canvass,2 supposing that I knew he agreed with me in opinion. No one has taken a warmer interest than I have in the candidatures of working men in general & Mr Odger in particular, & I believe Mr O. is well aware of this.

Not only do I object altogether to the extension of the C[ontagious] D[iseases] Acts,3 but I have seen the passing of them as they at present exist with great regret & shd be extremely rejoiced if they could be repealed: since not only do I object to them altogether on principle but I think that in the long run those measures are likely rather to increase than diminish the evil they are intended to attack. Moreover I fully agree with you in thinking that opposition to those Acts is more particularly incumbent on the defenders of the interests of working men, because working women are likely to be the greatest sufferers by this system of legislation & if it is to be carried out with anything like efficiency it could only be by an enormous expenditure which of course would fall in the long run upon the great mass of the taxpayers. Of course one need scarcely say that to any man who looks upon political institutions & legislation from the point of view of principle the idea of keeping a large army in idleness & vice & then keeping a large army of prostitutes to pander to their vices is too monstrous to admit of a moment’s consideration, while the safety of the country could be provided for by the military education of all classes, or until after every possible experiment with married soldiers had been tried & failed. I therefore do not think that this system of legislation which I think utterly depraving to the mass of the population (not to speak of its gross inequality between men & women) is in any way specially necessary for the army & navy. It is a monstrous artificial cure for a monstrous artificial evil which had far better be swept away at its root in accordance with democratic principles of government.

I do not wish to write anything at length or to print anything on the subject, Edition: current; Page: [1689] as I have great hopes that any further extension of these Acts will be checked by the public spirited action of the Ladies Committees, & I believe that full discussion of the subject will lead to bringing public opinion to our side in regard even to the repeal of the Acts. But if you would like to shew this letter to Mr Odger, or to any friend, I shd have no objection at all to your doing so.

I think you must have been misinformed as to the purport of the letter which I addressed, on the 23d of October, to a California citizen who had asked my opinion on the subject of the Chinese immigration.2 I certainly said that the settlement, in large numbers, of a population in a lower state of civilization, and willing to work for a lower rate of remuneration, would have a tendency to deteriorate the condition of the native laborer for wages, and would, so far, on general principles, justify restraints on immigration; but I urged, as a greatly preferable course, to endeavor, by education, to raise the Chinese population to the level of the American; and it is with great pleasure I learn from your letter that this is already being attempted with some success. The only measure of distinction which I did advocate was the enforcement of stringent laws against introducing Chinese under contract to work for particular persons; which is a form of compulsory labor—that is, of slavery. I should greatly deprecate the institution of a Chinese for an American population in all the departments of manual labour, the Chinese remaining what they are; but I distinctly stated in my letter that so long, at least, as the bulk of the immigrants return eventually to their own country, the opportunity given to numerous Chinese of becoming familiar with better and more civilized habits of life is one of the best chances that can be opened up for the improvement of the Chinese in their own country, and one which it does not seem to me that it would be right to withhold from them.

I would rather that no part of my letter2 were sent to the press. My former letter3 was published without my permission & though I do not greatly regret that it has been done I shd much dislike anything further of the same sort. It is neither good for the public nor for myself that mere obiter dicta, things written with no view to publication & written to persons who already agree with me, shd be sent forth through the newspapers as if they were the best I could do, & as if that were my chosen way of communicating with the public. I owe to the cause my name & the declaration of my opinion; but any slight & cursory attempt to argue it before the public would be a great mistake. So would it be on my part to join the Executive of your Association,4 which will be managed by men much fitter for such business than I am. But I feel it my duty to join the Association & shall be obliged by your putting down my name.

The American Social Science Association will do immense service if it makes itself an organ for stimulating the desire and obtaining the means of the highest possible education. Stimulating the desire is all that is needed for obtaining the means, for there are never wanting, in your country, generous men who give large sums to enrich their country with permanent institutions which they think useful to it. When opinion shall have been duly prepared, persons will probably be found who will be disposed to endow Professorships of Jurisprudence and Roman Law at Harvard College and the other Universities.

What you say about the new start which the mind of America has been led to make by her long and arduous struggle, is exactly what I foresaw from Edition: current; Page: [1691] almost the very beginning. I wrote in January, 1862, and often said in the years following, that, if the war lasted long enough, it would very likely regenerate the American people,2 and I have been seeing more and more clearly since it closed, that to a considerable extent it has really done so, and in particular, that reason and right feeling on any public subject has a better chance of being favorably listened to, and of finding the national mind open to comprehend it, than at any previous time in American history. This great benefit will probably last out the generation which fought in the war; and all depends on making the utmost use of it, for good purposes, before the national mind has time to get crusted over with any fresh set of prejudices as nations so quickly do.

It is wholly untrue that I have given any approbation whatsoever to the projectors of the meeting mentioned in your letter, or that I agree with them in any respect but in wishing to retain some connexion with the Colonies, and to promote emigration: and even on these points they had no authority from me to state any opinion. On the contrary, having received a copy of an intended Memorial to the Queen,2 emanating from the same people, with a request that I would sign it, I wrote a reply on the 23rd of this month, decidedly objecting to almost every point in the Memorial, I am very glad that you wrote to me and I beg that you will not give credit to any statement you may see about my supposed opinions unless confirmed by myself. I am

Mr Lecky’s2 state of mind on the subject of prostitution is characteristically conservative. He thinks that since it has not been reformed up to this day it never can be. This is the true conservative stand point. Whatever reforms have been already effected are well enough; if they were effected long enough ago, they are even excellent. As to any reforms in the future, though they might be desirable in themselves, they are sure to bring with them greater evils than they can remove; and then come those jeremiads more or less eloquent and touching, which we are so accustomed to in politics and morals, about the fearful consequences to society of attempting to do anything that has not been done already. It would be hardly possible to support any opinion by flimsier reasons than these particular ones of Mr Lecky. Are we to consider what the Church accomplished in the middle ages as the extreme limit of the moral improvement possible to mankind? Are the violent appetites and passions of half-tamed, or not even half-tamed, barbarians, a measure of the obstacles to be encountered in educating the young of a cultivated and law-observing community? The Church strove with sincerity and earnestness in the middle ages to suppress private war and the abuses of military violence, with very little success; but what could not be done then, has been found quite practicable since, and has been actually accomplished.

It is of more importance, however, to consider Mr Lecky’s doctrine than his reasons. He considers prostitution as a safety valve to prevent the propensity to which it ministers from producing worse evils.3 Now, in the first place, I believe that the propensity has hitherto been fostered, instead of being weakened, by the tendencies of civilisation (which has been a civilisation left mainly to the influence of men) and by the teaching of the Catholic Edition: current; Page: [1693] Church, which in order to add to the glory of the ‘grace of God,’ always has exaggerated and still does exaggerate the force of the natural passions. I think it most probable that this particular passion will become with men, as it is already with a large number of women, completely under the control of the reason. It has become so with women because its becoming so has been the condition upon which women hoped to obtain the strongest love and admiration of men. The gratification of this passion in its highest form, therefore, has been, with women, conditional upon their restraining it in its lowest. It has not yet been tried what the same conditions will do for men. I believe they will do all that we wish, nor am I alone in thinking that men are by nature capable of as thorough a control over these passions as women are. I have known eminent medical men, and lawyers of logical mind, of the same opinion.

But, in the second place, supposing that Mr Lecky is right in thinking, as he apparently does, that men are not capable of efficient control over this propensity, I should still differ from him when he thinks that prostitution is the best safety valve. I, on the contrary, think that with the exception of sheer brutal violence, there is no greater evil that this propensity can produce than prostitution. Of all modes of sexual indulgence, consistent with the personal freedom and safety of women, I regard prostitution as the very worst; not only on account of the wretched women whose whole existence it sacrifices, but because no other is anything like so corrupting to the men. In no other is there the same total absence of even a temporary gleam of affection and tenderness; in no other is the woman to the man so completely a mere thing used simply as a means, for a purpose which to herself must be disgusting. Moreover so far from thinking with Mr Lecky that prostitution is a safeguard even to the virtuous women, I think it cuts at the core of happiness in marriage, since it gives women a feeling of difference and distance between themselves and their husbands, and prevents married people from having frank confidence in one another. The fact I believe to be, that prostitution seems the only resource to those and to those only, who look upon the problem to be solved to be, how to allow the greatest license to men consistently with retaining a sufficient reserve or nursery of chaste women for wives. Their problem is not, as yours and mine is, how to obtain the greatest amount of chastity and happiness for men, women, and children. Marriage has not had a fair trial. It has yet to be seen what marriage will do, with equality of rights on both sides; with that full freedom of choice which as yet is very incomplete anywhere, and in most countries does not exist at all on the woman’s side; and with a conscientious scruple, enforced by opinion, against giving existence to more children than can be done justice to by the parents. When marriage under these conditions (and with such means of legal relief in extreme cases as may be adopted when men and women have Edition: current; Page: [1694] an equal voice) shall have been tried and failed, it will be time to look out for something else: but that this something else, whatever it may be, will be better than prostitution, is my confirmed conviction.

We are sorry that you have had such deplorable weather during your whole stay in Italy. The winter seems to have been a bad one over the whole South. There has been snow all round us; Perpignan, Narbonne, Bezius, have been snowed up. We have had none here; but instead of our glorious winter days (of which, until quite lately, there have been only a few) cold northwest winds, with clouds and haze almost like England. This ungenial weather has disagreed both with my daughter and me: she has been not nearly so well as when you saw her, and I have had a series of small ailments, and have still an obstinate cold.

Shall you be in England in April? The Women’s Suffrage Committee would, I believe, prefer to hold their meeting in April, but if you could not be present then, would postpone it till June. Would you mind writing to ask Mr Winterbotham4 to speak at the meeting? either in April or in June, according as you are yourself able to be present.

I inclose introductions to M. Jules Simon and M. Louis Blanc: the latter of whom, however, lives in England, and we hope you will meet him at our house. M. About I do not know.5

I should have plenty to say both on Mr Lecky’s further remarks2 and on your difficulties; but having just found your letter on returning from a five days excursion I write hastily for the chance of finding you still at Florence. I will therefore merely throw out a few hints. I see no proof of the difference of physical constitution you suppose to exist between men and women as to Edition: current; Page: [1695] the point in question. From all I have read or heard I believe that there are no signs of it among savages: and the Hindoo books talk perpetually of the unrestrainable voluptuousness of women. I rather think the difference is merely that the masters, being more accustomed to indulge all their propensities than the subjected, find them more imperative and uncontrollable. So much for Mr Lecky’s “heroic standard of virtue.” With Mr Lecky I am entirely at issue as to prostitution being the least bad form of illicit sexuality. I think it by far the most degrading and the most mischievous. On the whole I would rather you did not shew my letter to Mr Lecky.

We are very sorry to hear that you are going to lose a place which you like, and to have the great trouble of looking out for another.3 We will inform the Women’s Suffrage Committee of the limits within which your ability to attend the meeting will be confined. Many thanks for writing to Mr Winterbotham.4 I do not know how he reconciles his not having yet made up his mind to the suffrage, with “hearty adhesion to the principles” of the book on the Subjection of Women. “The question of careers and of political rights” will settle that of education much sooner than the latter the former; and this he will probably find out. Meanwhile, and independently of losing him as a speaker at the meeting it is a disappointment to find him less advanced than we hoped. I am

Dear Lord Amberley very truly yours

J. S. Mill

P.S. It will give me much pleasure if you should like to accept the offer Helen makes in her letter to Lady Amberley.5

I presume I am indebted to you for sending me the number of the Chicago Tribune which commented on my supposed opinions respecting Chinese immigration.2 Nothing could be clearer or fairer than the editorial Edition: current; Page: [1696] statement of the reasons which in my opinion might justify the exclusion of immigrant labourers of a lower grade of civilisation than the existing inhabitants. But I never said that in America & in the present circumstances of the case it ought to be done. My letter on the subject to a Californian citizen3 who had asked my opinion, has been so much misunderstood that I cannot but think the copy of my letter which I understand appeared in the newspaper must have been a mutilated one. I distinctly declared that in my opinion the right course to be adopted is to endeavour by education to bring the rising generation of Chinese up to the level of Americans. If there is little or no rising generation (the Chinese not being permanent settlers) I said that in that case their coming could be no such evil to the labouring classes as to justify its prohibition, while the opportunity it gives of carrying the ideas of a more civilised country into the heart of China, is an advantage to the people of China of which (I said) I do not think it would be right to deprive them. The only mode of immigration which I said that I thought shd be prohibited is the bringing over Chinese as Coolies under engagements to work for particular persons; which is a form of compulsory labour, or in other words of slavery.

Many thanks for the trouble you have taken to give information to Mr Watson.4 I have since heard that the American Soc Sc. Assn has taken up the subject,5 so that I hope a considerable amount of valuable information is likely to result from Mr Watson’s inquiries.

I beg to acknowledge your letter of Feb. 7 requesting me to give my name as Patron and Treasurer to the Working Men’s National Emigration Association.

I wish success to any plan by which the working people may be enabled to effect the purpose which the Association has in view; but as it is impossible for me to give any portion of my time and attention to the Society, I do not Edition: current; Page: [1697] think myself justified in becoming responsible for its proceedings by connecting my name with it. I am

Although you have not been successful, I congratulate you on the result of the polling in Southwark, as it proves that you have the majority of the Liberal party with you,2 and that you have called out an increased amount of political feeling in the borough. It is plain that the Whigs intend to monopolise political power as long as they can without coalescing in any degree with the Radicals. The working men are quite right in allowing Tories to get into the House to defeat this exclusive feeling of the Whigs, and may do it without sacrificing any principle. The working men’s policy is to insist upon their own representation, and in default of success to permit Tories to be sent into the House until the Whig majority is seriously threatened, when, of course, the Whigs will be happy to compromise, and allow a few working men representatives in the House.

I cannot help thinking St. James’s Hall too large for the meeting,2 unless you mean the smaller room there. I look with great misgiving Edition: current; Page: [1698] upon a meeting at all this year, as the promises are as yet so few. You have not told us whom you think of asking to speak. I think the second meeting3 in some respects more critical than the first, because many who have heard of the success of the first will come, & it will be mischievous if they go away disappointed. I cannot pledge myself to speak & I do not see a prospect of a successful meeting, whether I speak or not, unless Mr Maurice & Mr Cairnes consent. I do not see, without them, enough speakers of the first class. Will you kindly let us know for what day the 2d reading of the bill is fixed;4 & Helen asks me to say that she cannot write to Miss Hare5 until you answer her question whether you would like Miss Hare to read the report of the year’s proceedings in the place of Miss Biggs,6 as you suggested that some one shd do when we last saw you. You do not tell us what lady speakers you think of asking. Helen says that if there were no other lady speakers than yourself & Mrs Fawcett, she would do her utmost to try to speak herself, & thinks that probably her doing so might help to induce Miss Hare: but unfortunately she cannot promise, as she cannot depend with certainty on her health. Still we think that few lady speakers are better than having any who are not all that could be desired. I must reiterate my objection to St. James’s Hall because I think that even if it could be filled (which is doubtful) it would have too much the appearance of a public meeting. I shd have thought Willis’ Room quite large enough.

We have not yet fixed when we shall leave here, but will be in England for the meeting whenever it may be. In a letter7 received yesterday from Lady Amberley dated Feb. 17th she tells Helen that between March 20th & 25th would suit Lord A. best.

My daughter desires me to express her thanks to the Club2 for the honour which it has done her.

Edition: current; Page: [1699]

The earliest day on which the Club meets and on which I think I can be sure of being in England, is the 27th of March, and on that day we shall be most happy to attend. Will you kindly send the circular to Blackheath.

I hope that if there is a meeting of the Women’s Suffrage Society you will do it the great service of speaking.3

The Education Bill of the Government seems to me the nearest approach now possible to a surrender of English education into the hands of Denominationalism.4 I do not wonder that the Tories speak so well of it. If it passes unaltered, the effect will be doubly mischievous in Ireland. I am Dear Sir

It would be of the utmost value to the meeting of the Women’s Suffrage Society, and a great service to the cause, if you could find it possible to say a few words at the meeting.2 I know that it is asking very much from you, but in a case like this the second meeting is the most critical of all, especially after the first has been successful. Even if it is as good a meeting as the first, there will seem to be a falling off, because more will be expected: but to have the same speakers over again, with hardly any new ones, or with such only as add little to our strength, would be more than a falling off—it would be a failure. And so many of our best supporters came to the front last year, that there is considerable danger of failure from this cause. You, however, are part of our reserved strength: your name, and even a very brief expression of your sentiments, would add weight to the meeting. It is this extreme need which makes me hope that if it be possible, you will consent to speak a few sentences. However few they are, they will be of the greatest service, and I do not venture to ask for more.

My daughter says she shall be more an enemy of hunting than ever now that she knows your loss of health is partly due to it.3 She is very much gratified at your good opinion of her article,4 as there is no one whose favourable judgment she would regard more highly. She is very anxious to see your Edition: current; Page: [1702] additions to your Logic of Political Economy,5 as she had felt tempted to controvert part of it in something she was writing, but which she has laid aside until she knows your present views on the subject.

I agree with you that the land ought to belong to the nation at large, but I think it will be a generation or two before the progress of public intelligence and morality will permit so great a concern to be entrusted to public authorities without greater abuses than necessarily attach to private property in land. Meanwhile we should try to go on limiting the power of individuals over land by imposing more and more conditions on behalf of the people at large.

I most heartily agree with the Resolution of the London Branch,2 which I had already seen in the newspapers, and I am delighted that the Education League is preparing for a struggle. For myself I would rather, and I should think that the intelligent part of the working class would Edition: current; Page: [1703] rather have no National Education Act for the next five years, than one which should empower the State to establish schools on the denominational principle. All other objections, strong as some of them are, might be waived in order to get a beginning made of a national system; but that all schools founded by the Government, either general or local, should be purely secular is a point on which if I were in Parliament I would make no compromise, but if it was not conceded, would do what I could to defeat the Bill. Ever since I saw that the League was going to make a stand on this point I have been desirous of helping it by some expression of opinion, but I have not yet made up my mind how I can best do so.3 I rather dislike writing private letters to be published in the newspapers, of which there has been a great deal in my case already without my consent.

With regard to an International Free Trade Congress,4 I do not clearly understand whom in particular it is hoped to influence by it—the English working people, or foreign countries. If the latter, it would probably do good, provided it proceeded mainly from the foreign free traders. I am Dear Sir

I beg to return you my sincere thanks for your kindly sending me your excellent series of letters on the Women question.2 It is a real honour to have my name inscribed at the beginning of such a volume. Your book is both convincing & persuasive & is singularly free from the two contrary defects one or other of which writings for the cause of woman so often exhibit, of indiscreet violence & timid concession.

So competent a testimony as yours is well fitted to make me think that I have been at least apparently unjust to German women in the remark I made Edition: current; Page: [1704] in my little book on the insufficiency of their education.3 When I referred to this as being inferior to what it is in France I did not so much refer to the ordinary character of the schools for young women which I believe is much worse in France than in Germany, but to the much smaller number of women who, like yourself & a few others, have qualified themselves by their studies & acquirements for distinction & usefulness as writers. The average education of German ladies may be much superior (at least as to languages) to that of French ladies but there appears to be as yet a much smaller number who stand out from the general level & take a more or less high rank either in the literature or in the serious discussions of their country.

I hardly know how to express to you how much I feel the kindness of your consenting to speak in compliance with my wishes,2 though so much in opposition to your own. Had your unwillingness been grounded solely on your health, I would on no account have urged you against your own preference: but since it has its source in that too modest estimate of yourself, of which your friends have ample experience, I think they may fairly do what I should not advise them to do on most subjects—set their judgment above your own. I have not the slightest misgiving about your speaking, if but you do speak. It is only your health I am anxious about, and on that point your letter is encouraging. I beg that you will say only as much as can be said without overtasking your physical powers. However short your speech may be, I will answer for its being both a help and a credit to the meeting.

My daughter found, as I did myself, much to admire, as well as to learn from, in your Logic of Political Economy. As for your last article in the Fortnightly,3 she is even more enthusiastic in her admiration of it than I am, and thinks it one of the finest bits of writing in the English language; an absolute model of philosophical exposition in the balance and proportion of the parts.

Edition: current; Page: [1705]

I am happy that the favourable impression I retained of Courcelle Seneuil’s and Cherbuliez’s books4 is shewn by your agreement with it to be well grounded.

Allow me to thank you for your kind attention to my letter, & for the interest you have taken in the case of the dismissed policeman.2

I shd think more of the reason assigned by Mr Bruce for not reinstating the man if it were one that is consistently acted on by the police authorities. But there have been not a few cases in which magistrates have shown by their decision that they entirely disbelieved the testimony of policemen, either given to screen themselves or one another or in wrongful accusation of other people; yet so far as the public are aware, dismissal has not followed. I inclose a case which I have read this very day in the Daily News,3 where an inspector who had been dismissed for a grossly insulting abuse of authority towards two respectable women got himself restored by making statements privately against their character which statements having inadvertently become public he has been obliged publicly to retract. This is surely a much worse case of disregard of truth than that which Wm Smith is charged with. If this inspector remains in the force, it will be thought, & said that falsehood may be overlooked in a policeman who insults women but is unpardonable in one who defends them.

Undoubtedly if the man has really been guilty of falsehood he ought not to be reinstated: but that he persists in his story is all he can do if he is innocent. Of course in a case like this in which the magistrate has shewn such gross Edition: current; Page: [1706] incapacity there ought to be some independent examination of the worth of the evidence of the witness whose story was at variance with that of the man Smith. I shd have supposed that it would have been within the province of the head of the police to have made such an examination: for however much respect is due to a magistrate’s decision magistrates are after all fallible (unhappily in the case of Mr Benson apparently very fallible) & then it seems to lie with the Home Secy & the immediate superiors of any one who has been aggrieved to redress the injury as well as they can in the absence of any Court of Appeal.

I hope you have by this time quite recovered from your unfortunate & troublesome accident which I much regretted to hear of.

I have just received your letter, and I hasten to say that I am glad you agree with me in preferring joint action, and I highly approve of the formation of such an Association as you propose, consisting of the Ladies’ Committee with a reinforcement of men.2 I should be happy to be a member of an Association so constituted but should not be willing to be its President, as, being unable to give my time and labour to the business of the Committee, I do not think it would be right for me to hold myself out to the public as the head of the organisation, and the apparent guide and director of its proceedings.

I am truly sorry to hear that your indisposition has been so painful & so serious. It is well that the worst is past, and that you are rapidly recovering.

Edition: current; Page: [1707]

I am much obliged to you for writing out so clearly & well the best things which can be said against the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts.2 Much of what you say is in itself just: but considered as an argument in support of the Acts, I think I could answer every part of it; & some time or other I hope to do so.

The Ladies’ Manifesto3 supports its case in a manner which though well calculated for effect on a great number of minds, does not bear being brought to a strict logical test. Nevertheless it appears to me that the fault is not so much in the arguments as in the mode of putting them & that they might be so stated as not to be open to the criticisms which they have, naturally enough, suggested to you.

What will probably go farther in influencing the public mind than any argument is that the facts relied on by the supporters of the Acts are breaking down under them in all directions, & that their claim to have nearly all medical opinion on their side is showing itself to be utterly futile.

I have just seen the advertisement of your book4 in Longmans’ list. It is not worth while sending any proofs here as we leave for England at the beginning of next week.

I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd instant and to express my regret that the preparation of a Lecture for delivery as part of the Society’s series, still continues to be incompatible with my occupations and engagements.

Many thanks for your offer of help at the meeting of the 26th.2 The list of speakers is arranged by the Ladies’ Committee, of which Mrs P.A. Taylor, Aubrey House, Notting Hill is Secretary. The list is full for the present occasion; but it is just possible that Mr Odger, who is one of the speakers, may be detained at Bristol, and in that case perhaps the Committee may apply for your help at a short notice.3 In any case I will make your kind offer known to them, and, if not for this year, it may very likely be acceptable for next.

I was much interested by your letters,4 and am glad to hear that they are so much sought after. You are quite right, in these circumstances, to republish them, and I inclose an introduction to Mr W. Longman. I am

I regret that my name is promised to Chadwick for the meeting on Friday.2

It would be very desirable to give to the question the wider and more practical character you propose; and I think you may fairly try the experiment in the manner which your letter suggests. Any one who is interested in Edition: current; Page: [1709] the narrower question is likely to be interested in the wider and to be even better prepared for it, since it is à l’ordre du jour. It is very likely therefore that nobody will be otherwise than pleased at coming in for a more interesting discussion than he expected.

You were quite right, I think, as to the expediency of not mixing Longfield’s plan3 and the question of valuation in the same amendments.

Your letter was forwarded to me at Avignon but I delayed acknowledging it until I shd have an opportunity of reading your book2 which was waiting for me here.

If, as you intimate, my review of your first publication3 had any share in procuring for the world the series of works which I & so many others have since read with so much pleasure & instruction; far from regarding this exploit of mine as a sin to be repented of, I should look upon it as a fair set off against a good many sins. This most recent of your works is as full of valuable & happily expressed thoughts as any of its predecessors, while as a story it is more successful than Realmah4 though perhaps not more interesting to a psychologist. With regard to its practical object, emigration, I shd like very much to see the experiment tried in the manner you propose, of founding beyond the seas a new community complete in all its parts. But the Edition: current; Page: [1710] conditions of a new country produce of necessity a state of society so much more democratic than our own, that it is only very exceptional persons in our higher and middle classes that could either reconcile themselves to it or have the foresight & mental adaptability required for guiding & organising the formation of such a community. And considering the great addition made annually to the poorer part of our population, the scheme would have to be executed on a vast scale indeed if it is to clear out the bad quarters of our towns & leave them a tabula rasa for reconstruction on better principles; not to say that the inhabitants of those quarters are far from being, in general, good material to colonise with.

I am very happy that you go so far as you do with those who are seeking to remove the civil & political disabilities of women. Since you think women shd have the suffrage, surely you shd join the Suffrage Society which claims nothing whatever but that independent women with a due property qualification shd be allowed to vote.

Before receiving your sister-in-law’s letter,2 we had learned of your irreparable loss from one of those who most loved you & Mr Hickson, our friend Miss Lindley.3 My first thought on hearing the sad news was of you. I know too well that there is no consolation for a calamity like yours. But nothing can deprive you of what comfort there is in a knowledge of the deep respect which was felt for your husband & will continue to be felt by his memory, by those who have known him as long & as well as I have. Mr Hickson was one of the small number of those who, with no personal ambition to gratify have laboured from an early age first to acquire the powers necessary for enabling them to render services to mankind, & then to use those powers to the utmost extent of their opportunities, & he was in no ordinary degree, successful in both objects. I have from an early period been accustomed to look upon him as in many important respects an example of what men should be. The loss of every such man makes the world poorer, & is to be lamented even by those who had not the privilege of his personal friendship—how much more by all who had.

Neither my daughter nor myself will be able to attend the Radical Club2 next Sunday. I shall have much pleasure in accepting your kind invitation to dine with you on Saturday April 9, but my daughter regrets that she has an engagement which will prevent her from accompanying me. I am

I inclose the list of the pairs, which with the two tellers makes up 82 on our side in the division.2

I omitted to mention to you yesterday how exceedingly mischievous I think it would be if any deputation of ladies were to attempt to go up to Gladstone. From what I know of him, as well as from many other considerations, I think there are few things that would do more to throw back the movement, renew the old prejudices against women’s franchise and neutralise what has been done to further it. I am

You are most welcome to retain Cherbuliez and Courcelle Seneuil2 for any length of time, or permanently. As for Carey’s book,3 which I think is the very worst book on political economy that I ever toiled through, the only thing I wish to do with it is to find somebody who will take the trouble to write a detailed exposure of it, for the American public, on whom I believe it has really some influence. If you know of any person competent and willing Edition: current; Page: [1714] to perform this irksome but useful service, it would be a great satisfaction to me to make him a present of my copy.

The Land Tenure Committee, at its meeting on Monday, approved a programme compounded of the old and the new articles, subject to confirmation by a general meeting of all the members of the Association, which is to be held in July.4 Meanwhile the programme is to be printed and a copy sent to every member. The organization of the Association is adjourned till after that meeting has been held.

You have a right to be surprised at the delay in my answer to your letter. But your book2 is not one of those which one is content to read in haste, and some time passed before the pressure of my occupations permitted me to devote to it the time and attention which it deserved.

You have written a work, Mademoiselle, of great value, and all the more meritorious that it must have been very painful to write it. I have rarely read a more sad book. One has never, I believe, revealed in fuller detail the miseries of life for the great majority of women, and the revolting injustices of masculine society with respect to them. I should like it if this book were to be read from beginning to end by all men and women of the so-called enlightened class. I believe that it would make many of them ashamed of their culpable inaction in face of evils so frightful and injustices so monstrous.

Unfortunately, France is far from having on this question the bad preeminence which you attribute to it. Social reformers are always inclined to believe that other countries are better than their own. Unhappily, the difference is very often more apparent than real. In many passages you give an amount of praise to England on the subject in question which it is far from deserving; and those who in England uphold the cause of women often Edition: current; Page: [1715] pretend in their turn that their condition is much better in France. Unhappily, both deceive themselves.

As to the commencement which has been made here in the regulation of prostitution, and which some are endeavoring to extend, your book would suffice to condemn it without appeal. An association of women, some of whom are very distinguished, has been formed to excite opinion against this deplorable system.3 They are heartily seconded by men, and there is reason to hope not only that the upholders of the system will not venture to go further, but that they will be obliged to undo what they have done.

Accept, Mademoiselle, the expression of my high and respectful consideration.

You greatly overrate the qualities required for writing such books as mine, if you deem them to include that of being a competent adviser and director of consciences in the most difficult affairs of private life. And even a person qualified for this office would be incapable of fulfilling it unless he possessed an intimate knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and the character of the persons concerned. It would be a long and a difficult business to define, even in an abstract point of view, the cases which would justify one of two married persons in dissolving the contract without the consent of the other. But as far as I am able to judge from your own statement, yours does not appear to be a strong case, since your husband has still an affection for you, and since you not only do not complain of any ill treatment at his hands, but have so much confidence in his goodness and high feeling, as to feel sure that even in case of your leaving him without his consent, he would not seek to withhold any of your children from you.

If I could venture to give any opinion, it would be that if the only bar between you and such a man is a difference in your “ways of thinking and feeling,” unfortunate as such a difference is in married life, the mutual toleration which we all owe to those who sincerely differ from us forms a basis on which the continuance of your union may be made endurable, and the differences themselves, when nothing is done to exasperate them, may, as is usually the case between persons who live intimately together, tend gradually to an approximation.

I suppose Fawcett will attend the General Meeting of the Committee of the Land Reform Association in July, when his difficulties can be considered, and probably met. Nobody who had any hand in the programme had the smallest wish that cooperative cultivation should be under any control of Government, either in the large sense of State, or in the narrower sense. The words last added to the article relating to Cooperation (which I think were inserted after Fawcett had left the meeting) were intended expressly to meet the objection felt by him & others that the Cooperative Associations might not be sufficiently spontaneous.2 The State was never intended to have any part in the matter except to grant land, on their application, to such spontaneous cooperative associations as could give due guarantee of solidity, the nature of which guarantees should be fixed by law.

There is surely something better for us to do than to drop all that part of the programme which relates to the land & confine ourselves to claiming for the public the accidental increase of rent. It would hardly be worthwhile forming an association for a single point of land reform, or for anything less than a comprehensive scheme. And the point in question is precisely that which would meet with least support from the higher and middle class reformers, while the working classes would not be satisfied with it.

With regard to Snell’s Committee,3 you & Fawcett probably know more about him, and what he is likely to do, than I have any means of knowing.4Edition: current; Page: [1717] But I should have thought that if the leaders of the working classes are willing to join the Committee we might do so. I do not know in what sense you mean that Snell may “deliver us into the hands of Glyn.” If merely that you think he will compound for too few seats, I see no harm. Such members of the Committee as are willing to yield for a little, will have done all the work they are capable of doing in getting that little, & probably never would be able to get it if we who stand out for more did not unite with them. But we should still be free to refuse to compound for so little, & the fact that some of us had been bought off would be an encouragement, not a discouragement to newcomers to join us and fill up our ranks again. Of course what I say will not apply if you think we are likely to be quite outvoted as the Committee in any corporate action; if the leaders of the working men, content with their own Association5 for the same purpose, have declined to join the Committee.

I have now finished a careful reading of your book.2 When I compare it with my own mode of treating the subject I am much struck with the combination of nearly perfect agreement in the fond of our opinions on every part of it with so much originality in the manner in which you have presented many of them. This, if it stood alone, would make the book very valuable for there is no more important service to any set of thoughts than to vary their expression, & to deduce them from one another in different ways. But in addition to this, by varying the modes of statement you have illuminated points & aspects of our common doctrine which the previous exposition had left more or less in the shade. And you have followed out some of the principles into consequences not previously drawn.

I find little or nothing, relating properly to Logic, from which I dissent; but a good many apparent conflicts between your mode of expressing & presenting technical details, & mine; in most of which cases I still prefer my own. This applies chiefly to the first volume,3 & even that exclusive of its concluding Edition: current; Page: [1719] chapters. When I next revise my Logic4 I shall carefully collate each chapter with the corresponding chapter of yours: but in general, instead of trying to incorporate your new matter, I think it will be both better in itself, & fairer to you to refer to what you have done, give a brief account of it, & direct the student to your fuller exposition. Of course I cannot dispense with adapting the statement of the theory of Causation to the Correlation of Force: but your book has confirmed me in the opinion I had formed, that but little adaptation is required. In making that little I shall be greatly helped by the clear light in which you have placed the distinction between the two sorts of antecedent conditions, the conditions of Force & those of Collocation.

Respecting the Conservation theory itself, you have given by many degrees the clearest explanation of it that I have ever met with, & I now seem to myself to understand the facts of the case pretty completely. But about the mode of expression of the facts I still boggle, & have a stronger impression after reading your exposition than I had before that the men of science have not yet hit upon the correct generalization though they may be at no great distance from it. I am so anxious to understand this matter thoroughly that I write down my difficulties in hopes that you will help me to resolve them.

In the first place, you exclude from the theory two of the principal forces, Gravitation & Molecular Adhesion, expressly distinguishing these from the “correlated forces.” Of course you do so because there is at present no proof of the convertibility of the other forces into these; & you do not take any notice of the hypothetical explanation of gravitation by molecular motions, given by Tait5 (I believe) & others, which so strikingly resemble the argument of Descartes to shew that his vortices might generate a tendency to a centre. But though gravity does not take its place in the theorem of conservation, motion generated by gravity does. Suppose, then, a weight suspended by a string over the shaft of a mine—suppose that the string breaks, & the weight falls, with rapidly increasing velocity, to the bottom. Here is a positive addition to the active force at work in the universe, which, when it ceases its mechanical motion, remains in the form of heat or in some other of the correlated forms. Now, at the expense of what pre-existing energy has this force been generated? The conservationists are obliged to say, out of potential energy. A given quantity of potential energy has become actual; & if the weight is hoisted up again the power expended in raising it is so much taken back from the sum of actual energy & restored to the sum of potential.

Edition: current; Page: [1720]

Now I want to analyse the meaning of this phrase, “potential energy.” It seems to signify some force actually residing in the suspended weight. But it is nothing of the kind. There is a force actually residing in the weight; a force exactly measurable: viz. the downward pressure with which it pulls at the string, & by which it is able to neutralise an equal weight at the other end of a lever. But this force is limited to that with which the body would commence falling if the string broke, & is far short of the vastly accelerated force with which it would reach the bottom of the mine. When we are bid to say that this augmented force existed previously as potential energy in the weight, this potential energy is not to common sense & logic anything which really existed, but is a mere name for our knowledge that a force would be created if the body began to fall.

I am discussing the expressions, not denying any of the facts. I admit that when force is expended in placing a weight in a “more advantageous position,” as you express it (i.e. in a place from which it has further to fall in order to reach its centre of attraction) when it does fall to the depth from which it has been raised it will reproduce the exact amount of force expended in raising it (making allowance for any part which may have been transformed into heat). The expression “potential energy” is no doubt adopted to enable us to say that the total amount of force in all Nature can neither be increased nor diminished, the sum of the actual force plus the sum of the potential being a constant quantity. But this only means that there is a vast reserve of force not existing in any shape now, but which gravity could call into existence, & that this not actual but possible quantity of force has an extreme limit, viz. the whole of the motion that would be generated by the rushing together of all the gravitating bodies in the universe until they could not possibly get any closer together. From time to time a little of this possible force gets itself created & in that case it requires that an equal force shd be expended if the effects produced are to be counterbalanced or undone.

It seems to me a bad & misleading form of expression to ascribe the motion which would be gradually acquired by gravitating bodies if the obstacles which keep them apart were removed, to an energy of equivalent amount residing in the body before it begins to move.

But if this objection could be overruled a greater remains behind. You say (& this is a point quite new to me) that force may be, & is, expended in merely altering the collocation of bodies, without generating even potential energy. This I suppose is the case when force is expended in destroying molecular adhesion. But if this be so, how can the indestructibility of force be maintained? The sum of actual force plus the sum of potential is, in that case diminished.

When you have time, perhaps you will kindly explain to me how the theory of Conservation as at present expressed, can stand with this fact.

Edition: current; Page: [1721]

There are some questions in physical science which I shd like to ask of you, but this can be done viva voce at some future time. In particular I was not aware that chemical combination always produces heat. I will ask you some time or other to tell me the explanation of the apparent exceptions—freezing mixtures & the like.

Among the differences of mere language between your book & mine there is only one which I much care about; your use of the word “elimination.” In mathematics we eliminate what we want to get rid of: we eliminate y to obtain an equation containing only x. Of late careless writers in newspapers &c. having picked up the term have taken to using it in a sense the reverse of this: they eliminate not what they turn out but what they keep in: they eliminate the truth out of conflicting stories &c. In your book you employ the term in both ways: whenever a separation is effected between essentials & nonessentials, you speak indiscriminately of “eliminating” either the one or the other.6 Is this mode of using the term adopted from a deliberate choice? & what are the advantages that recommend it to you?

You have some reason to be surprised that so long a time has elapsed since I received your Letters on Causation and Freedom in Willing2 without my having given you any intimation of the impression they have made on my mind. The reason is, that ever since I received them, my thoughts have been so much occupied with subjects not metaphysical, that I really have not, until quite lately, been able to give the proper attention to such a book as yours, or even to make myself acquainted with more of its contents than was apparent on a cursory inspection. I once began reading it through, but was obliged to leave off. At last, however, I have had time to read it with the attention it deserves and am able to tell you the result.

Your present book confirms and increases the impression I already had of your acuteness, argumentative power, and perfect fairness both in considering the subject and in discussing it. I do not think that your side of the Edition: current; Page: [1722] question has ever been better represented. The book, like your previous ones,3 does honour to American thought. It seems to me, however, to mark that the discussion between us has reached the point at which there is no advantage in our carrying it any further; since the region of difference between us, instead of narrowing, as is the case in controversies likely to have a successful issue, is, on the contrary, very much enlarged. The exhaustive manner in which you endeavour to meet everything which is said in opposition to your conclusion, stirs up continual new ground, and raises a great number of fresh differences of opinion. Were I to attempt to answer you, I could hardly do so but by getting an interleaved copy, and writing something on every blank leaf; for there are few pages of your book in which there is not some proposition or argument which I contest. And were you thereupon to follow my example, you would have to write another book as large as this. Both of us would thus spend a great deal of time for no sufficient result, since no important practical consequences depend on our convincing one another. Our opinions agree as to the point of real importance in practice, viz. that the moral government of human beings, either by themselves or by their fellow creatures, must take place by acting either upon their knowledge or their wants; i.e. either upon their expectation of consequences from their acts, or upon their feelings of desire and aversion towards those consequences.

I will merely touch briefly on one or two points on which something seems necessary to be said in order to bring out the question between us with greater definiteness and intelligibility.

1. You argue (with Professor Bowen)4 that our knowledge that we can produce effects by volition must be antecedent to experience, because, in order to have experience of this fact, we must already have willed. The answer to this you will find in the exposition of the Volitional part of human nature given in Professor Bain’s book “The Emotions and the Will”,5 and more briefly in his and my own notes to the “Analysis of the Human Mind.”6 The substance of it (which was anticipated by Hartley) is, that all our voluntary motions were originally automatic; the product of the mere physical activity of the system under the stimulus of food and air, as when an infant free from restraint kicks about in all directions. By these means, without any antecedent volition, experience is acquired and an association formed between particular movements and the wants which these movements are found to satisfy; and the result is that the movements themselves come to be directed and controlled by the ideas associated with them: from which elementary fact all the complications of what we call the Will are gradually built Edition: current; Page: [1723] up. I cannot here go any further into the point, but this is the doctrine you have to combat.

2. I perceive that you attach great importance to maintaining the simultaneity, in preference to the succession, of the immediate cause of an effect and the effect itself. I confess that this question appears to me equally unimportant and insoluble, inasmuch as the only point at issue is, whether the commencement of the effect dates from the very first instant at which the whole of the necessary previous conditions come together, or from the very next instant after that instant. I do not see how it can ever be ascertained which of these is the fact. And whichever is so, Causation remains the law according to which the facts of the universe succeed one another.

3. But you seem to use this supposed simultaneity as the formation of an argument, when you say that the Past has no power of deciding human voluntary determinations—that these conform solely to present facts, viz: the agent’s expectations of the consequences that will follow his actions and his wants. But no one pretends that they conform to anything else. The mode in which past facts are supposed to determine our actions is by determining these present facts, viz. our expectations (well or ill grounded) of consequences, and our wants i.e. our desires and aversions.

4. You take great pains to shew that the possibility of foreseeing how a person will act, is consistent with his freedom. Many necessitarians, I admit, have maintained the contrary; but I never did. I have never taken any part in that controversy. My use of the possibility of prevision was quite different. I used it to shew, that since we can foresee human actions with as near an approach to correctness as we can foresee any of the phenomena of dead matter which are equally complicated, and the antecedents of which are equally obscure; it thence appears that there is the same uniformity in the course of human actions as there is in the remainder of the course of nature; or at least, that we have as much ground for affirming such uniformity in the one case as in the other; and the distinction contended for between voluntary acts and other phenomena of nature, that the latter are in their own nature certain and the former contingent, does not exist. This argument perhaps does not apply to you, as you, apparently, do not assert that supposed distinction, but consider the phenomena of inanimate nature as also the direct effects of (divine) volition.

To turn to another subject: I am much obliged to you and to your son7 for the information you kindly sent respecting the operation of the Ballot in the United States.8 From these and other communications I infer that the popularity Edition: current; Page: [1724] of that method of voting in America depends upon its convenience as a mode of collecting large numbers of votes, and not upon its secrecy, which, as a general rule, does not exist in America. It is now, to my great regret, going to be tried in the United Kingdom; for, having been proposed by Mr Gladstone’s Government, it is sure to be carried before long.9 Voting by putting tickets into a box is a very good method, provided that each voter signs his ticket with his name. But in England the object in view is to conceal the name; and though the voters can scarcely, by any change, be made to feel less moral responsibility for their votes than a great proportion of them do now, I believe that the secrecy of the vote will tend very much to prevent the growth of a feeling of moral responsibility in time to come, while it will shield from all discredit the man who votes contrary to his known or professed opinions. I am

I do not think there is much that I could do with the leaders of the working classes by means of your Resolutions.2 The Resolutions go into details on which they might conflict with the line already taken up by the working classes at their public meetings, especially in the limitation applied to the compulsory principle, and possibly in the constitution you propose for the school committees. The point which it is really of importance to impress on the working classes is the necessity of a skilled central initiative instead of leaving the initiation of measures to local boards: and on this I do not think the working classes likely to be unwilling listeners. It does not seem to me that they have anti-centralisation prejudices: it is the lower middle class, who are accustomed to get local management into their hands, that are unwilling to share power with a central authority. I think you should put yourself directly in communication with the leaders of the working men. It is your working Edition: current; Page: [1725] so much through others that prevents you from having the personal weight and importance you ought to have. People really do not know how many of the most important practical ideas afloat originated with you. The only leaders of the working classes whom I know personally (except very slightly) are Odger, Cremer, and Howell. The last two I know best, and I think you would find them capable of understanding and appreciating you. If you could make an impression on them, or on Odger or Applegarth,3 they would be good advisers as to the best mode of bringing your ideas before the working classes of London and the provinces—I am

It seems to me that the position of the Women’s Suffrage question is immensely improved by what has taken place in Parliament.2 You yourself a few weeks ago could not count as many as 100 members of parliament who Edition: current; Page: [1728] were known to be in our favour, & there are now, including pairs and absentees, 184, considerably above a fourth part of the House; of whom 29 voted in the second who had not voted in the first division. The amount even of Tory support was most promising, including some of the most prominent members of the party below Cabinet rank, and among others both the whips. We knew that we had not a majority in the House, and that when the thing looked serious, our enemies were sure to rally and outvote us unless the Government took up the cause, which the time had certainly not come for expecting. The rally is the first proof we have had that the thing is felt to be serious. I am in great spirits about our prospects, and think we are almost within as many years of victory as I formerly thought decades.3

But I think it would be a great mistake to merge the women’s question in that of universal suffrage. Women’s suffrage has quite enemies enough, without adding to the number all the enemies of universal suffrage. To combine the two questions would practically suspend the fight for women’s equality, since universal suffrage is sure to be discussed almost solely as a working men’s question: and when at last victory comes, there is sure to be a compromise, by which the working men would be enfranchised without the women, and the contest for women’s rights would have to be begun again from the beginning, with the working men inside the barrier instead of outside, and therefore with their selfish interests against our cause instead of with it. Thus women’s enfranchisement would be thrown back for a whole generation, for universal suffrage is not likely to be obtained in less time than that; and at the end of the generation we should start again in a more disadvantageous position than we are in at present.

Want of time, and other causes, make it impossible for me to undertake the essay requested for the new Cobden Club volume.4

I hear from Mr Pratt of Bombay,5 that you have been looking into his case. I know nothing of it or of him but what I have heard from himself, but there is great appearance of his being an injured man; for, the government having acknowledged him to be substantially in the right, by abolishing the abuse he pointed out, the only ground on which they can have furnished him Edition: current; Page: [1729] with any pretence of reason is that there was something in the manner of doing what he did, which was inconsistent with official subordination, and on that, if, as he affirms, the late Governor Sir Bartle Frere6 thinks him perfectly in the right, I would back Frere’s opinion at any odds against that of the Tory underling, Fitzgerald.7 He seems also to have a prima facie case of at least favoritism against Fitzgerald with reference to the Bombay firm whom he attacked. Do you not think that it is altogether a case which requires that a question or questions should be asked in Parliament? any further steps to be dependent on the kind of answer received? I am

My friendly correspondent Mr Barnard of Boston has sent me the enclosed cutting, which, if Mr Ware2 has not already sent it to you, you will be glad to see.

Have you seen the article by Mr Eugène Aubry-Vitet, in the Revue des Deux Mondes of May 15, entitled “Le Suffrage Universel dans l’Avenir et le Droit de Représentation des Minorités”?3 It is a most intelligent and thorough advocacy of your system, of which it will spread the knowledge and appreciation through France and Europe in a very effective manner. There is only one point on which he stops short of you. Thinking it vain to hope that electors will fill up intelligently, or fill up at all, a list equal to the entire number of the House, he would divide the country into large districts, and hold a separate election for each, the voter only putting down as many names as the district returns members. But he has a supplementary proposal which would give to this plan a great part of the advantages of yours. Whenever a district cannot make up the quota for its full number of deputies, then, instead of supplying the remainder by a simple majority of votes, all the voting Edition: current; Page: [1730] papers which have not served for a return are to be sent to a central office, to have the quota made up whenever possible from the similar voting papers of the whole country. Now these voting papers would be chiefly those of the electors who had voted for national in preference to local names; so that persons of known merit, but without local influence, would have facilities for being elected, approaching to those which your system would give them.

I should much like to know what you think of this plan, both in itself and as an intermediate step.

A time seems to be coming in France, when improvements tending to correct the defects in the machinery of universal suffrage, without impairing, but on the contrary giving for the first time real effect to its principle, will have more chance than heretofore of a favourable hearing from the friends of universal suffrage; in order to take away weapons from the Orleanist and bourgeois party, who are thought to be making plans for indirectly reducing universal suffrage to a nullity.

What immense progress the cause of Women’s Suffrage has made since 1867:4 the number of votes rendered for it at one or other of the divisions 162, double the number of three years ago; making up with the known adherents who were absent, more than a fourth of the house: and including both Liberal and Tory names which were little expected. And the bill was only thrown out by a rally of its enemies in force, shewing that, for the first time, they felt it to be a serious matter; which it must be our business that they shall never hereafter cease to feel it. We may count among our gains, the tone of exasperation which has succeeded to that of mockery in the Saturday Review, Pall Mall Gazette, &c. which is at once a sign that they feel us to be getting on, and a help, by the resentment which their insolence rouses in women. As soon as a sufficient number of women can be sufficiently roused, success is certain. I am

I think it ought to be the aim of our endeavours, to accelerate the period when male voters will vote against a member for refusing the franchise to Edition: current; Page: [1731] women. In proportion as we succeed in inducing women to desire the suffrage, we shall gain the electoral votes of an increasing number of their husbands & fathers; and a small fraction of the constituency making any particular point a condition of their support, often compels the candidate to subscribe to it. Between now and the next general election a great deal may be achieved in this way. But there is still more to be hoped from the progress of conviction in the minds of members of parliament. It is not the pressure of constituencies which has doubled the number of our parliamentary supporters since 1867. Is there not something marvellous in so great a progress? It is an important fact to know that Noel2 & Col. Taylor3 voted for the Bill avowedly on party grounds. With the opinion of the whips and (we may be sure) of the leader of the party, that it is a good party move, we may count positively upon very soon gaining quite as many votes by “party hope” on that side as we lose by party fear on the other. And it is very encouraging to hear that in addition to the liberals who have voted or paired for us in spite of party fear, there are many more who would do the same if that disturbing consideration were absent. It shews what strong ground there is for hope from our continuing to act, with all the force we can command, upon the general mind of the country. Moreover, we have often found that the very Liberals who express the strongest fears for the Liberal party if women had votes, and ground their refusal to join in our agitation upon this fear, seem suddenly to lose it altogether when from some cause or other they begin really to wish that women had votes. In fact, this fear for the Liberal party is accordingly apt to be the last subterfuge in which men entrench themselves who have too much liberal principle and too much perception of logic to be able to take up any other, but who at the bottom of their hearts do not like the equality between men and women. Every year diminishes the dread and dislike of this equality among just such men; and in the same proportion diminishes their fears for the interest of the Liberal party. I am

In a Commission of Inquiry, the having already formed an opinion on the subject ought not to be a disqualification since the object is to appoint, not Edition: current; Page: [1732] judges, but persons who are capable of extracting the evidence, for others to judge of. I don’t, however, feel that I should be warranted in tendering to Mr. Gladstone, unasked, a recommendation as to the persons of whom he should compose his Commission.2 I am,

I do not conceive that those who think as we do can support any proposal which would tax Catholics, Jews, and Secularists for religious teaching which (though it might be undenominational as regards the different divisions of Protestant Christians) would be such as they would not consent to have given to their own children. I see no mode in which the plan of the Dissenters, taken up by Vernon Harcourt,2 could be supported by us, unless provision were made that Catholics, Jews and Secularists on declaring themselves such, should be excused a part of the school rate. If this is not done, probably the best course for those who think as we do would be not to vote at all on Vernon Harcourt’s Resolution. It would not do to vote against it, because that would be giving the preference to the Government plan, which is worse.

When the time comes for succeeding in a proposal to leave religious teaching altogether to the voluntary principle, I think the different religious denominations should be left to organize the teaching as they please. It is not likely they would leave the expense to be defrayed exclusively by the parents of the children. It would be a point both of honour and of interest with Edition: current; Page: [1733] every denomination, to raise a fund for the payment of religious instructors for as many of the children as would accept such instruction at their hands. The churches and sects, being relieved from voluntary subscriptions for secular instruction will have the whole amount available for religious, for the sake of which chiefly it is that many of their number subscribe for education at all. I am

I have received your three letters but (owing to my absence from England) not your pamphlet,2 & I shall not now see it until my return, which will be in the beginning of next month. From what I already know of the case,3 I am convinced that justice requires the Government to take upon itself the responsibility of culpable not to say criminal mismanagement which could not have taken place except through the connivance or guilty negligence of the Government directors & which by placing those directors on the Board the government pledges its integrity to prevent. I am therefore most desirous to give you all the help I can. When I have read your statement I shall be better able than I am to judge in what manner this can best be done.

I think it will be quite right that you should send copies of the pamphlet to Mr Gladstone & the D. of Argyll accompanied by a short letter & the draft you sent me is very good, but I think you might advantageously throw down into the letter something of what of course predominates in the pamphlet, a direct appeal to their sense of justice.

Edition: current; Page: [1734]

I am truly sorry to hear that in addition to your heavy losses by the Bombay Bank you are a sufferer by another insolvent company. Our commercial law even after its recent amendments is still deplorably lenient to the grave offence of dishonest bankruptcy.

. . . The oversight which you point out has been brought to my notice by other correspondents, though it seems, curiously enough, to have escaped the notice both of friends and of opponents until after the publication of the last edition.2 . . . The necessary correction will be made in revising the book for a future edition. . . .

I have read your little tract with interest but I perceive that you have either published or intend to publish another pamphlet containing the remedies you propose for the evils you so justly denounce. In the meantime I will only say that I think you underrate the power of Trade Unions to raise wages; & that I differ from you when you say that a general rise of wages would be of no use to the working classes because it would produce a general rise of prices. A general rise of prices, of anything like a permanent character, can only take place through a general increase of the money incomes of the purchasing community. Now a general rise of wages would not increase the aggregate money incomes, nor consequently the aggregate purchasing power of the community; it would only transfer part of that purchasing power from Edition: current; Page: [1735] the employers to the labourers. Consequently a general rise of wages would not raise prices but would be taken out of the profits of the employers; always supposing that those profits were sufficient to bear the reduction.

The case is different with a rise of wages confined to a single, or a small number of employments. That rise if taken out of profits, would place a particular class of employers at a disadvantage compared with other employers: & as soon as they ceased to hope that the loss would be only temporary, they would withdraw part of their capital, or at all events, all new capital would avoid those trades & go into others. Consequently the supply of these particular articles would fall short, & their prices would rise so as to indemnify the employers for the rise of wages. But this would not happen in case of a rise of all wages, for as all capitalists would be affected nearly alike they could not as a body relieve themselves by turning their capital into another employment.

I knew before reading your pamphlet2 that the Bombay Government, having by the Constitution of the Bank the appointment [of] Edition: current; Page: [1737] three of the nine directors, was morally responsible, not necessarily for the strict prudence of all the Bank’s transactions, but at all events for their not being in violation of the admitted & generally practised rules of safe & legitimate banking. I knew also that those rules had, by the directors of the Bank, been flagrantly & systematically violated. But even after all I had read, my idea of their misconduct fell short of what it is shown to have been by your detailed history of their proceedings, & the many years during which I knew, studied, & profited by the work you did for the Bombay Govt. have taught me to repose great confidence in any statements of yours, which moreover in the present case rest upon, & can be easily collated with, the report of a Government Commission.3

It is hardly possible for abuse of trust to be carried to a greater pitch in the forms of banking than it was by the managers of the Bombay Bank, when, to omit many other disgraceful facts, nearly half the capital of the Bank passed, on nominal security, into the hands of a speculator4 who was himself one of the directors, or into those of friends recommended by him, generally for the purpose of puffing up his own special actions; when the Secretary, Mr. Blair,5 who was allowed to lavish the funds of the Bank without check or control, received large pecuniary favours from this person; and when two even of the Govt. directors, one of whom was long President of the Bank,6 realised large sums by the sale of allotments which they received from speculative companies to whom loans were made by the Bank: the case was certainly one which, in a good system of commercial law, would come within the definition of criminal bankruptcy, and if justice were done, the chief culprits would be expiating their guilt by fine & imprisonment. Now I find that the Government, through the whole course of the Bank’s misconduct, were as utterly regardless of their obligation to watch & control its management as if no such obligation had existed. They gave no instructions to the Govt Directors. They allowed the Bank to be carried on under the new charter without even any by-laws to govern & direct its management. And they neither obtained nor sought from their representatives on the Board any information respecting its proceedings. The great pressure of public business on an Indian Govt might be some, though a very insufficient excuse for this quiescence as long as there was nothing to excite suspicion. But the quiescence continued after the mismanagement & embarrassments of the Bank were so notorious even in England as to alarm the Secretary of State, who felt it his duty to warn the Bombay Govt. After this the conduct of the Govt. was if anything more discreditable than before. Their unwillingness to admit that anything was seriously Edition: current; Page: [1738] amiss almost amounted to complicity. To the warnings & questionings which they now frequently received from their superiors in England & at Calcutta, they answered smooth things, extenuating to the utmost the amount of mischief, abetting the directors in witholding information demanded of them, & acting as if it were their deliberate purpose to screen the misconduct of the Bank, though probably only desirous of screening their own neglect of the duty of supervision. It is shown that had the Bombay Govt., even after they had become aware of the evil, done their duty in preventing further malversation, the Bank notwithstanding the great losses already sustained might have been saved from insolvency, & the property of the shareholders might have been in great part preserved to them. By not having done this, even if by nothing else, the Bombay Govt. made itself morally a party to the misconduct of the Directors & responsible for it to the sufferers.

It may be said that the majority of the Directors, including those most certainly guilty, were elected by the shareholders. But considering the extreme difficulty under which the shareholders labour, as well in England as in India, in choosing trustworthy directors or in controlling them, it is certain that the shareholders placed (as they had every reason to think themselves warranted in placing) their principal reliance on the Govt; whose representatives on the Board, themselves high in the public service, must if they did their duty to Govt even as the largest shareholder in the Bank, take care that its interests in common with those of the other shareholders, shd receive ordinary & decent regard from those to whose charge they were entrusted. The shareholders would have had no claim to indemnity from the Govt for ordinary losses, or for such as were occasioned by irresistible circumstances, or even by ordinary & venial mismanagement. But they have a just claim in foro conscientiae to reparation from the Govt for loss sustained by gross and criminal violation of duty on the part of its agents. An able speaker in the H. of C. who was master of the facts could make a speech on them which would resound through the whole country & which would be damaging to any Govt that resisted the claim.

You are at liberty to make use of this opinion of mine in any quarter in which you think it would be of service. If it goes to Mr Gladstone or the D. of Argyll, I would rather it shd be as an enclosure in your letter than directly from myself. But though I think well of the intentions of both those ministers, I think them sufficiently like ministers in general to be much more certainly influenced through the press than by any representation addressed to themselves. I could put your pamphlet into the hands of the editors of several newspapers & could probably induce them to pay some attention to the subject. How far they might be willing to proceed in what might be opposition to the Govt I cannot tell.

Edition: current; Page: [1739]

There are several courses to choose from, & it is for you to consider which of them you prefer. One is to defer any appeal to Parlt or the public until it is certain that your application to the authorities is unsuccessful. Another is to endeavour to get a motion made in the H. of C. And if this be determined on, the question occurs whether it shd be done in the present session, or early in the next, the public mind being in the meantime acted on as much as possible through the press. If you decide for this session, I will when I return to E. which will be in about a fortnight, consult with my parliamentary friends & try to find some one in the House willing to take up the subject & capable of doing it with effect. There shd if possible be simultaneously an organisation through the press & any influence I have with editors I will most gladly make use of but as I have said I do not know how far it is likely to be effectual.

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of June 17. I agree in the main, with all that you say respecting the limitation of the right of property even in moveable wealth.2 I never meant to say that this right should be altogether unlimited, nor to ascribe to it sacredness in any other sense than that all the necessary conditions of human happiness are sacred. I do not, indeed, quite agree with your friend Mr Wright,3 when, in the passage quoted and concurred in by you, he seems to say that, from the utilitarian point of view, the right of private ownership is founded solely on the motives it affords to the increase of public wealth; because independently of those motives, the Edition: current; Page: [1740] feeling of security of possession and enjoyment, which could not (in the state of advancement mankind have yet reached) be had without private ownership, is of the very greatest importance as an element of human happiness. But this is probably a difference rather in expression than in opinion between us.

There is, however, this great practical difference between the case of moveable wealth and that of land, that, so long as land is allowed to be private property (and I cannot regard its private appropriation as a permanent institution) society seems to me bound to provide that the proprietor shall only make such uses of it as shall not essentially interfere with its utility to the public: while, in the case of capital, and moveable property generally, though society has the same right, yet the interests of society would in general be better consulted by laws restrictive of the acquisition of too great masses of property, than by attempting to regulate its use. I have, in my Political Economy, proposed limitations of the right of ownership, so far as the power of bequest is part of it, on the express ground of its being injurious to society that enormous fortunes should be possessed by gift or inheritance.4

My daughter and I are greatly obliged to you and Mrs Norton for your kind invitation.5 It would be a real pleasure to us both to avail ourselves of it. But we have been calculating lately whether we can afford to allow ourselves, this summer and autumn, a holiday of ten days or only of four, and such are the calls on our time and the quantity of work we have to do that we have been compelled to decide for the shorter of the two.

The announcement that I was to be at a meeting in London on the 15th of this month was quite unauthorized.6 The request did not even reach me till after the meeting had taken place. We leave here in a few days, and shall be at Blackheath (where please direct) in the second week of July for the remainder of the summer.

The death of Dickens7 is indeed like a personal loss, even to those who knew him only by his writings. I am

I hope that you will be able to attend,2 and that you will propose, as an addition to the programme, the important point which you suggested in your letter to me, viz., the right of the State to take possession (with a view to their preservation) of all natural objects or artificial constructions which are of historical or artistic interest. If you will propose this I will support it, and I think there will be no difficulty in getting it put into the programme, where undoubtedly I think it ought to be.3

We hope to be able to be at the Club2 meeting on the 24th, and any place of meeting is equally convenient to us.

I am sorry that an engagement will prevent us from being at the Club next Sunday.

The programme was adopted at the meeting today3 in all its parts, with an additional article moved by Mr Wallace (of the “Malay Archipelago”) Edition: current; Page: [1742] for taking possession by the State of all natural objects or artificial constructions of historical or artistic interest.4

At the request of several members, the provision for allowing landowners to give up their land to the State at the market price was incorporated with article 4. One of the most recalcitrant opponents of the article, Mr Neville,5 hereupon gave in, and remains with us; and I think he will be valuable. I am

I am greatly obliged to you for your letter, with the greater part of which I fully sympathize. Most especially do I concur in what you say about confining the movement as far as possible to women domestic in their tastes and habits, who have fulfilled their own duties in an exemplary manner; and also to women of good education and breeding, not lovers of fuss or notoriety. Unhappily the success we have attained attracts, like all other success, the sort of people who are always seeking to turn a penny or push themselves into notoriety. The very success which has brought home the knowledge that there are such opinions as ours to a sufficient number of households to influence the country, brings with it unhappily in its train the crowd of vulgar selfseekers. But however quiet the means we take for bringing opinion round to us, we cannot escape this hateful train of pushing and vulgar, except by escaping success. The very day and hour that it begins to be felt there are many who agree with us, the selfseekers will thrust themselves in, whether it be sooner or whether it be later. They are the signs of prosperity, and its curses, which we cannot escape. The question therefore, appears to me to Edition: current; Page: [1743] be—Cannot we associate the cause with quiet, upright, and ladylike women, as well as with vulgar, questionable, and pushing ones? I am aware that nothing but a strong sense of duty will induce such women to expose themselves to be, even by mistake, associated with the others. But should we do well to leave the others as the sole public representatives of our cause? which will be the consequence if all the quiet and self-respecting women remain hidden in their own homes. This was a cause of great anxiety with us last winter. We knew that Mrs Taylor would have lady speakers, if possible, at the London meeting,2 and we knew that if we could not find ladies who would do what we thought credit to the cause Mrs Taylor would be thrown back upon those friends of the cause, of whom there are plenty, who have more energy than discretion. Now it has been our constant effort to keep the London Committee free from association with pushing people; and we feel that your influence will be of great use in helping this, weighing heavily on the side of discretion and reserve. Unfortunately, too many of those whose influence will be of use on this side, instead of joining in the work, and throwing their influence on the right side, are apt pusillanimously to withhold themselves altogether. Yet this is, in a manner, a monastic view of public affairs. If all the highminded shrink into the congenial privacy of their own homes (as in the middle ages into a convent) they leave none but the vulgar minded to occupy the public eye, and produce an effect upon the world at large. We must remember that there are vast numbers in the country, to whom the papers and public agitation are the only openings for obtaining knowledge of what other people are thinking. People of small means, who have little or no social intercourse, and who cannot afford to buy or borrow many books, yet see a penny paper, and hear of public meetings in their own neighbourhood. It would take many generations to touch these, solely through private intercourse. Yet this class of people are worthy and excellent, deserve as much attention as the higher classes, and by their numbers are fully as influential on the course of politics. Indeed, for a long time past, it has been they who have forced new ideas upon the upper classes, not the upper classes upon them. And yet, to work upon them, it is necessary to condescend to the vulgar instruments of the press and public agitation. Mrs Taylor, in all her action, mainly regards these: and we cannot say that we think her altogether wrong: but we should like to see a course of conduct struck out which might be suitable to all classes of society, and we think that with sufficient care and thought it might be done. If we regarded only the upper classes, it would be well to work only by social means: if we regarded only the lower and lower middle, almost any means of publicity would be useful. Is it quite impossible to strike a reasonable balance between the two? This is a question which we should like much to discuss with you.

Edition: current; Page: [1744]

I cannot agree in considering the result of the division in the House of Commons this session as a check.3 Of course it was called so by opponents; if only to conceal the enormous progress it really shewed us to have made. I cannot conceive that the measure ever could have passed this year (or that it can pass for many years to come): but I had not imagined that 150 members of the House of Commons were prepared to vote for it, as they did. This year’s division has shewn that the measure has nearly doubled its supporters in the House of Commons in the last three years. I am not sanguine enough to hope that we can receive many more such “checks”; if we could, within nine years, by a very simple process of arithmetic, we should have the measure passed by unanimity through the House of Commons, and then we might defy the Lords! Surely, on due reflection, this cannot be fairly called a check.

As regards the other movement4 which has lately sprung up, to which you allude, there is no doubt that it has greatly intensified the bitterness of one or two writers in the press (who might be easily named) who however, at the best, were always vehement opponents of any emancipation of women. Those gentlemen are now really angry, because in this particular movement they see women’s point of view producing practical results upon the elections.5 Hence they are really frightened; but we should have had them just as bitter against the suffrage whenever that also was a sufficiently popular cry to influence the elections: and of course you and I hope it may be that, some day. I do not think that the majority of women who have interested themselves in this unpleasant matter are influenced by any of the base motive you seem to attribute to some of them. I believe that there has seldom been a movement of purer chivalry than this among respectable women who are exposing themselves to almost intolerable insult, wholly from the goadings of their conscience, and their belief that they are responsible if they do nothing for the horrible degradation of fellow-women. So far as I have seen, it has been this feeling, that the connivance of virtuous women alone makes it possible for so-called decent men to call into existence the “profession” which is in question—it is this feeling which has made the strength of this particular movement among women. Of course, there may be exceptions; but it so happens that all women whom I know of, concerned in the matter, are middle aged, and most of them mothers of families: and this movement also has convinced large numbers of people (including Mr Maurice, and Miss Carpenter) that women ought to have the suffrage.

I should be very glad to have an occasion for talking over these matters with you, and my daughter wrote in April last to Mrs Kingsley, asking her Edition: current; Page: [1745] whether there was any chance of our seeing you and her at Blackheath this year, either in the month of July or August. My daughter’s letter was addressed to Eversley, and we suppose Mrs Kingsley has not received it.6

Friday will suit us very well, and we shall be glad to see you then. We usually dine at five on week days as well as Sundays, but can defer it to a later time if you cannot be conveniently down here so soon.

My daughter sends her article2 by this post. She would be glad to have a proof. I am

Did you leave a copy of Mr Herbert Spencer’s book on Education2 here? If so, I will return it to you. But if the copy we have found is not yours, do not trouble yourself to write as I shall take not hearing from you as a sign that the ownership is to be looked for elsewhere. I am

Miss Taylor and myself propose to be present at the meeting of the Club2 on the 31st, but have not decided at what time we go, or in what way. Most Edition: current; Page: [1747] probably however we shall drive over from Ramsgate on the Sunday. I suppose in that case there will be no difficulty in getting rooms in the Hotel for Sunday night. I am

I think you should by all means publish the note.2 There is a slight obscurity in one part of it, which, on examination, I think depends on a single pronoun. You say “According to Comte (as will be seen by reference to the passage just quoted) the reason for this is” &c. It is not clear what is the antecedent to “this”. I presume “the reason for this” means the reason why the organic world must be studied in the ensemble. But it reads as if it meant the reason why every organism is an ensemble.

In consequence of letters which came last night, I shall be engaged on Friday from 12 to 1 and on Saturday the greater part of the forenoon. But I am disengaged on Friday either at 1 or at 2. I am

It gives me the greatest pleasure to know that the service rendered by my dear wife to the cause which was nearer her heart than any Edition: current; Page: [1748] other, by her essay in the Westminster Review,2 has had so much effect, and is so justly appreciated in the United States. Were it possible in a memoir to have the formation and growth of a mind like hers portrayed, to do so would be as valuable a benefit to mankind as was ever conferred by a biography.

But such a psychological history is seldom possible, and in her case the materials for it do not exist. All that could be furnished is her birth-place, parentage, and a few dates! and it seems to me that her memory is more honored by the absence of any attempt at a biographical notice, than by the presence of a most meagre one.

What she was I have attempted, though most inadequately, to delineate in the remarks prefaced to her Essay, as reprinted with my “Dissertations and Discussions.”

I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by the Rhode Island Legislature in constituting a board of women for some very important administrative purposes. Your intended proposal that women should be impaneled on every jury where women are to be tried seems to me very good, and calculated to place the injustice to which women are subjected at present, by the entire legal system, in a very striking light.

Any plan that suits the other members2 will suit me perfectly. And as I and my daughter are accustomed to travelling, we should not mind if rooms cannot be found for us: only, in that case, I should wish to know beforehand, so that I may get some kind of conveyance to take us to and from the nearest convenient sleeping place, or home. As far as we are concerned, if the meeting were at Broadstairs, Ramsgate would have suited us quite as well as the Albion. I am

Though I regret very much that you do not sufficiently agree with the articles of the new Programme,2 to feel justified in remaining a member of the Association, it is not without deliberate consideration that I have concurred in a course of policy for the Assn which we knew would prevent many persons whose support would have been valuable from joining it. We had to choose, however, between losing their adhesion, & depriving ourselves of all support whatever from the working classes: & we might still hope that those who had accepted our first programme would cooperate with us from without on the important points on which they agree with us, while as an Association we shd have no power of usefulness whatever unless we could enlist in our support the most intelligent part of the working classes; who are very generally adopting as their creed the entire resumption of the land from private hands into those of the State.3 We thought it the wisest course, therefore, instead of limiting our demands so as to obtain the greatest attainable amount of adhesion among the higher & middle classes to go as far to meet the demands of the working classes as we conscientiously could, provided that by this means we could induce them to support us & act with us; and the Conference with some of their leaders at which you were present, showed that they were willing to do so.

The provision for the purchase by the State of land in the market, would be chiefly applicable to neighbourhoods in which there are neither common lands, nor lands belonging to public bodies, sufficient to give a fair trial to small holdings & to cooperative agriculture. I quite agree with you that public bodies ought not to hold lands; but I think it quite worth trial how the State could manage landed property (which is a great part of its business in India). And of one thing I feel certain that nothing but a trial on a large scale, & for a considerable period, would convince the working classes that such a system would be unsuccessful or injurious.

The article asserting the right of the State to the “unearned increase”4 &c Edition: current; Page: [1750] is not so worded as to imply that landowners are to be dealt hardly with in this respect. Its purpose is simply to assert the legitimacy of special taxation on land, in consideration of the special property it possesses, in a prosperous country, of continually rising in value. No doubt, as you say, this rise could not have been so great as it has been & is, had there been no improvements in agriculture, because, without those improvements, the growth of wealth & population could not have reached anything like the same extent. The improvements however arise in great part, from the improved skill, & knowledge, & exertion of the tenants, not the landlords. And, for what the landlords have done, they would be indemnified by the option allowed them (& now inserted in the programme) of resigning their land to the State at the market price. It is probable, as you say, that the price of wheat is not now higher, proportionally to other things, than it was many years ago. But I apprehend that this is owing to foreign importation; & that nearly all other agricultural produce, especially cattle, meat, & dairy produce, have risen in an extraordinary degree.

Other property than land may, no doubt, rise in value without any exertion on the part of the owners. But I do not know of any other kind of property of any importance, which rises in value from generation to generation in every improving county by a sort of natural law, the exceptions to which are rare & only temporary. Not to mention that land being the gift of nature, & of limited quantity, a system of landed property which was just & reasonable so long as land was obtainable by all, is fairly liable to reconsideration as soon as the land has become insufficient in quantity, & has been engrossed by a small number of proprietors.

I hope your visit to the Channel islands will accelerate the restoration of your health which I was very sorry to hear stood so much in need of recruiting.

I have received and read the essays2 which you did me the honour to send. I am quite of your opinion as to the usefulness, in the present stage of human improvement, of speaking out, without reserve, whatever Edition: current; Page: [1751] opinions one has deliberately formed on topics important to mankind, subject, of course, to the duty of satisfying oneself by calm consideration that one knows, and has taken into account, such qualifications and counter considerations as may be necessary to make one’s opinion a fair expression of the truth. I do not, however, blame a person who stops short of the complete public expression of unpopular opinions, when it would involve serious danger of the loss of his means of subsistence; for though it is often a merit, it is only in peculiar cases a duty, in any one to be a martyr for his opinions.

You are mistaken in thinking that I have purposely withheld, in my book on “The Subjection of Women”, any opinions which I thought relevant to the subject.3 The purpose of that book was to maintain the claim of women, whether in marriage or out of it, to perfect equality in all rights with the male sex. The relaxation or alteration of the marriage laws, in any other respect than by taking away all vestiges of the subordination of one sex to the other, is a question quite distinct from the object to which the book is devoted, and one which, in my own opinion, cannot be properly decided until that object has been attained. It is impossible, in my opinion, that a right marriage law can be made by men alone, or until women have an equal voice in making it. You say in one of your essays that my book recommends that marriage should be dissoluble at the will of either of the parties. Now I carefully avoided giving any opinion as to the conditions under which marriage should be dissoluble, for the very good reason that I have not formed, and do not consider either myself or any one else capable at present of forming, a well-grounded opinion on the subject. I, of course, accept your proposition that human freedom should not be interfered with, except by such precautions as are necessary to prevent injury to society; but what those precautions are, in this particular case, is precisely the question to be discussed, and it can only be determined justly or expediently by the joint experience, and with the full force and well-considered concurrence, of both sexes.

I shall feel obliged by you laying before the Assessment Committee this my appeal against the increase of the valuation of my house in Blackheath Park to £180 Gross & £150 rateable value.

Edition: current; Page: [1753]

The rent I pay for the house is £150 with an additional £3.17.0 for insurance. But the continual cracking of the walls owing to the settling of the house from defect in the foundations causes incessant expenses falling little if at all short of half the rent. I have been under the necessity of twice underpinning the house, & during the ten years ending with 1869 it has cost me in absolutely indispensable repairs £422.19.4 in bricklayer’s bills alone, besides heavy bills of carpenters, plasterers, painters, paperhangers, plumbers & even glaziers, consequent on the unequal sinking of the house. This expenditure I can substantiate by vouchers, and the most cursory inspection of the house will shew it to be in need of much further expense of a similar nature at the present time.

A few years ago the Assessment Committee of the Lewisham Union gave me notice of their having raised the valuation of my house, but on representation from me of the continual & heavy expense of necessary repairs they reduced the rateable valuation to £100 per annum at which it has since stood & at which I hope it may be allowed to remain.

Being informed by Mr Burnett2 that I ought to send you notice of the appeal against the new valuation of my house in B.P. which I have sent through him to the Ass Ctee I beg leave to inclose a copy of the appeal.

Sir Charles Dilke ended the note in which he told me of your wish to make a public demonstration on the war,2 by asking me, if I disapproved of it, to write to you; and therefore I have not written to you.

I highly approve of having a demonstration, and I hope there will be many of them. For myself, I do not wish for the present to appear in any way in the matter. A time may come when it will be the duty of every one to speak out. But, while I do all I can in private, I think it best for the present, both for Edition: current; Page: [1754] public and for private reasons, that my name should not appear.3 This letter therefore is confidential. In the meantime I think the points of most importance are, that the English public should know, and shew that it knows, that this war has been brought on wholly by Napoleon: that the Prussians are fighting for their own liberty and for that of Europe: that England is bound to protect Belgium, and that our utmost efforts can only, if Napoleon lives, defer war, not prevent it. Our turn must come. Therefore, that our people ought to arm at once, taking the responsibility off the Government, which is right to be prudent and silent. The Volunteers ought to be armed with the newest and best rifle by public subscription. It is not a time for talking about peace and the horrors of war when our national existence may be soon at stake. At the same time it is wrong to attribute this war to France. Neither in justice nor in prudence ought we to do so. The Germans are right in saying that it is Napoleon, and not France, they are fighting, and Napoleon, if he lives, and is successful in humbling Prussia, will attack England, the fourth of the great powers that fought at Waterloo. I am

We are very glad to hear from you, and to know that you are going on prosperously. I do not recognize your hand in the two numbers of the Figaro,2 but I am glad that it may be seen in the Nonconformist.3

I am much obliged to you for your letter which though it does not remove my difficulties affords material which may perhaps help me towards resolving them.2

How do we know that any energy has ever been expended in “separating the masses to the distance at which they begin to gravitate towards each other”? The new theory of the universe in relation to Force shews the same tendency from all past time to draw the masses nearer to one another instead of separating them, to which it is supposed that the present order of the universe will finally succumb. If by the masses are meant the molecules, & if what you say refers to the separation into different stellar bodies by cooling, of what was originally a nebula; I would say that the molecules of the nebula must have already gravitated towards one another. If they were ever too close together to do so, how have they ever emerged from that state? I cannot see what preexisting force can have been hoarded by gravitation.

“Elimination” in the chemical application which you mention, still seems to mean only getting rid of, and not picking out & retaining.3

If the old corporations retain and exercise the power of granting to women a complete medical education & if they can be induced to confer on those who avail themselves of it medical degrees, it is probable that the examining body to be created by the new medical bill would not be permitted by opinion to refuse them the license to practice.4 The bill I see is withdrawn so that there will be time to look into the subject.

The Woman’s Suffrage Committee is desirous of finding competent persons who would be willing to go to different places to speak at public meetings, help to form local committees &c. The Committee would remunerate them for their time & trouble. Are there any of your former pupils or other intelligent persons known to you who you think would be willing to cooperate with the Committee in this manner?

Edition: current; Page: [1756]

You have no doubt received the new programme agreed to at the General Meeting of the Land Tenure Association. There are still great difficulties made about the 4th article,5 that which relates to the unearned increase of rent, but these generally gave way after explanation & discussion as far as regards individual conviction; the objectors still thinking it premature & injudicious to include that point in the programme. There is however no hope of obtaining any support to the Assn from the leaders of the working classes without going at least as far as the fourth article goes in the way of a compromise with their larger projects. All that seems feasible is to get this part of the programme well explained, so as to meet such of the objections as are founded only on misapprehension.

The statement in the papers that I am about to publish a new ed. of my Logic is incorrect.

It has been suggested to me several times to publish a cheap edition but these applications have not, in general, been from working men. I shd be very happy to think that there is any considerable number of working men who desire to read a treatise of such length & on such a subject.

The first intimation I received that my communication to you2 had appeared in print, was in a letter from California complaining of it as unjust to the Chinese,3 in such terms as to give me the idea that the writer had never seen the concluding part of the communication. He did not, I believe, inform Edition: current; Page: [1757] me in what publication he had read it, nor did I suppose that even if garbled it must necessarily have been for a dishonest purpose, nor that you must have been the garbler. I am perfectly satisfied with your assurance that my letter was originally published as it has since been republished entire.

I am sorry to hear that your progress towards recovery is so slow. There can be little doubt that rest from the exertion of the brain is the real cure, & this is seldom to be had except by the substitution of gentle & unexhausting excitement for that which is more severe. The mind flies back to its old occupations unless it obtains new.

What the working men of London aim at under the name of nationalization of the land, is nothing less than the entire abolition of private property in land, the State taking possession of all the land (at a valuation) & managing it as the public estate. As a step to this it is proposed by some of them to prevent all future purchase of land by private individuals, those who wish to sell being required to sell to the State.

With regard to the reasons that you give for thinking that the increased value of land is no more than a fair equivalent for landlords’ improvements, I expect that when the question becomes a serious one, a Commission will have to be appointed to collect all facts which have any important bearing on the subject.

If you are in town & can spare the time I shd like much to call on you & have some conversation on the affair of the Bombay Edition: current; Page: [1758] Bank.2 Although both my opinions & my official experience make me anything but favourably inclined to the interference of Govt to shield individuals from the consequences of their own unfortunate speculations, it does appear to me that the Bombay Govt not only by the gross misconduct of the official directors & its own neglect to look after them but also by its course of conduct after the evil had become a matter of notoriety, has incurred a very grave moral responsibility to the shareholders; & that it cannot relieve itself from this except by taking on itself some pecuniary responsibility.

I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 10 & the pamphlet2 to which it refers.

I am entirely in favour of retaining our connexion with the colonies so long as they do not desire separation. And I think the nation is of the same opinion, & would not tolerate, in the Government, any conduct which it believed to proceed from a desire to break the connexion. But I confess I do not think it likely that a periodical meeting of delegates from all the colonies & dependencies with no substantive powers, merely for the purpose of discussion, would excite sufficient interest in those countries to become a useful institution. What a colony desires from the mother country is generally something having reference to its own special wants, & which it would probably, in general, prefer to discuss singly with the Govt which has the power of decision. The participation of numerous delegates from other communities with no interest in the particular question, communities whose wants are different & who have little fellow feeling, would, I should think, be more likely to be felt as an incumbrance than desired as a help.

Allow me to express my surprise that one who attaches so much importance as you do to the mere public discussion of subjects by those who are specially interested in them, should see no use in the admission into the H. of Edition: current; Page: [1759] C. of representative working men. Their presence there seems to me indispensable to a sufficient discussion of public interests from the particular point of view of the working classes; which assuredly is not less worthy of being considered, nor has fewer truths mingled with its errors, than the points of view of the other classes now so superabundantly represented in Parliament. The “Parliamentary tone” does not seem to me to be at present so elevated as to be in any danger of being lowered by the admission of such men as Mr Odger3 into a House a majority of whom seem to me to be abundantly endowed with all the characteristics you ascribe to him, except the “considerable mental vigour” for which you give him credit. The result I shd expect from bringing contrary prejudices face to face & compelling them to listen to one another would be a great improvement on both sides: & in my own experience the working classes are not those who have shown least willingness to be improved by such collisions.

I have the highest admiration for Mazzini,2 & although I do not sympathize with his mode of working I do not take upon myself to criticize it, because I do not doubt that to him is mainly owing the unity & freedom of Italy. Nor do I in the least doubt the reality of the danger your letter speaks of. But the real safeguard against that danger lies in the fact that the whole Italian people, friends & enemies, are assuredly fully aware of it, & that the Italian Govt must be fully aware that if any mischief happens to M. while under their custody no one in Italy will attribute it to natural causes. On the other hand, nothing whatever would persuade any but a few rare scattered English people that any such danger exists at all. To say so would simply be to expose oneself in England to the imputation fully believed by those who make it, of being a rabid & fanatical partisan: whereas in Italy Edition: current; Page: [1760] the mildest & most moderate people will believe it even if it is not true. Hence I am sure that it would be impossible to bring the influence of English public opinion to bear in this matter. To attempt to do so would simply be to call forth such honest & genuine expressions of incredulity as might even convince the Italian Govt of what they would otherwise never suspect—that if M. dies in prison the English public may really not be sure that he was poisoned.

The safety of M. depends on the fear that his death might arouse feeling in Italy dangerous to those in whose hands he is. As I believe this to be the case, I think in all human probability the Govt will be very desirous of avoiding anything of the sort & of setting him free as soon as they conveniently can. Some action on the part of English liberals to request his liberation on grounds of humanity, his age, his health, &c., might, a little time hence, give an excuse to the Govt they might be glad to take to set him free. At present I fear they would not think it prudent to do it.

Were I an English personal friend of Mazzini I shd certainly endeavour to obtain access to him,3 for I think the greatest danger at present is of his fretting himself into an illness, which in the hands of Italian doctors might naturally terminate fatally. The presence of a real friend might be of great use to him, & as English people’s word is generally believed, the Italian Govt might more easily permit English than Italian friends to see him, since they might trust them better to do nothing that they undertook not to do.

I so far agree with the promoters of the meeting to which you do me the honour of inviting me, as to be very desirous to see a movement commenced for the thorough military training of the general population. I wish the mass of soldiers to be identical with the mass of citizens, & standing armies Edition: current; Page: [1761] to be eventually dispensed with, except the scientific corps, & probably a permanent staff of carefully trained officers, not taken as at present from one class of the community, but from all.

But I do not agree with what seems to be implied in a “Protest against this country being brought into the war.”

To declare beforehand that no amount of iniquity perpetrated before our eyes, shall induce us to go to war, would be the surest way of encouraging wars abroad, and would infallibly, like all other selfishness & cowardice, finally redound to our own cost. If war between nations is ever to be put an end to, it can only be as war between individuals has been checked in civilised societies—by the creation of a police & an impartial umpire to settle quarrels. To create such a system it is necessary that all courageous & right feeling men shd be ready to suffer in protecting the weak in politics as they ought to be in civil life. And to stand by & see a free & civilised [right loving?] nation, such as Belgium, which appeals to us for help, deprived of its liberties by overpowering force, would be to set an example as injurious to the best hopes of civilization as it would be base & pusillanimous. What is necessary to prevent the generous spirit of the nation from being abused to bad purposes & leading either to iniquities or to unnecessary wars is that the nation itself shd closely watch its governors, shd refuse to enter into any war which does not approve itself to its conscience as just, & shd steadily in time of peace as in time of war examine into & control all the military expenditure & organisation.

I have put down these few remarks for yourself & the Committee, but I shd be obliged by your not giving any further publicity to them.

The question respecting the expediency of making the sale of instruments of war by neutrals to belligerents an offence against the law of Edition: current; Page: [1763] nations, is a difficult one, & though I have given it some consideration I cannot say that I have arrived at a positive opinion. Your paper2 will probably assist me in forming one.

About one thing I feel quite clear; that the matter ought not to depend, as it does by our present laws, on the discretion of the executive. For the sake both of principle & of policy the question shd be determined by law. And it cannot well be determined by law without a previous agreement among the principal nations; since otherwise we should either be adjudging to ourselves rights which might not improbably be disputed, or acknowledging obligations which might not be reciprocated.

On the rule itself, there is a conflict of considerations. On the one hand real neutrality seems to me to consist in not aiding either side with means of carrying on the contest: including under “means,” any articles of which the sole, or at all events the principal, use, is for warlike purposes. On the other hand, it is generally, though not universally, true that the party most benefitted by, because most needing, supplies from neutral countries, is the weaker of the belligerents, who is the more likely to be the oppressed or injured party; including among the rest all who are in arms, on however just provocation, against their own government. It is significant that the only case in which the power given to our own executive in this matter has been acted on (the case of the Greeks & Turks) is of this last description.

A further consideration is the difficulty of preventing exportation to the belligerent countries without stopping exportation altogether. It would be of little use to prevent guns being sent to Dunkirk if they can be sent to Ostend & from thence find their way into France. But this only amounts to saying that it is of no use for one country to act on the rule unless it is adopted generally. If it were so adopted, the Belgian Govt would be responsible for preventing the guns exported to Ostend from entering France.

On the whole, I incline most to leaving the exportation free, but not without misgiving; for when the access to foreign supplies operates as it generally does, unequally upon the two belligerents, it seems to me hardly possible that the public opinion of the party suffering shd not regard the professing neutral as substantially an ally of the enemy; & perhaps with still greater resentment as one who without any ground of quarrel seeks to make profit by a neighbour’s misfortunes.

There is but too much ground for your apprehensions as to the feelings likely to be left by this war;3 but if it had been unattended with a great & Edition: current; Page: [1764] decisive success on either side, it would probably have been much more prolonged, & the case is preeminently one in which the shortest evil is the best. Then too it was important that a striking retribution shd fall on the aggressor [in] an unprovoked war. It is the justice of their cause which has roused the whole German people & given them this irresistible might. But it is deplorable to think that the French nation may from a false point of honour, persist in an unjust war which they neither originated nor desired.

I think your article2 very good, and likely to be useful. It is very complete in the logical, and also in the purely economical, point of view. Some other time perhaps you might find it useful to carry on the examination of Bastiat’s doctrines to the social, or practical, point of view, and shew how far from the truth it is that the economic phenomena of society as at present constituted always arrange themselves spontaneously in the way which is most for the common good or that the interests of all classes are fundamentally the same. There is not, however, room to do this in addition to what you have already so conclusively done, and I should not recommend attempting it. I have therefore sent on the proof to Virtue,3 after correcting two or three typographical errors which had escaped your notice.

The events in Europe are indeed overwhelming. What will be the end of them no one can foresee. But it is melancholy to see that the French, even those who opposed the war, have not the magnanimity or the common justice to feel and admit that they are responsible to their neighbours for injuries done by any one whom they allow to govern them; and instead of making reparation to Germany for perhaps the most unprovoked attack in modern Edition: current; Page: [1765] European history, and for the myriads of lives which have had to be sacrificed in repelling that attack, they think it fine to persist in the injury, and to slaughter more and more of those against whom they are already such deep offenders.

Thornton’s article4 is, as you say, very weak; but metaphysical subjects are not among his strong points. You have laid your finger very precisely upon one of the principal of his many fallacies.5 All he says is answered by anticipation in Bentham’s Introduction to Morals and Legislation,6 and in my father’s Fragment on Mackintosh.7

I should be happy to give copies of my “System of Logic” to some of the Institutions you refer to if you would let me know what are those where you think it would be valued.2 The degree in which these copies are read by working men would be some indicator of the degree of utility of a cheap edition.

What sort of price would in your opinion meet the requisites of a cheap edition of such a book as the System of Logic?3 I must however add that in permitting Edition: current; Page: [1766] a cheap edition I am simply sacrificing nearly the whole of any profits made by my work, even if the sale is very considerable. No cheap edition of a serious work appears ever to pay the author anything more than a trifle. If the sale is likely to be large among really working class people, that is to say if many persons are really benefitted by my sacrifice I am willing to make the sacrifice of my own profit for their benefit. But unless the sale is largely increased I am not sure that it is the best use I can make of the money. I am not sure even whether the same amount of money might not be better spent in making presents of gratuitous copies of the library edition.

On the first of the points mentioned in your note, I think that the Government of National Defence,2 being to all appearances obeyed as the Government of the country by all parts of France which are not in the power of a foreign army, ought to be recognised officially (it is already recognised semiofficially) as the de facto Government by Great Britain:3 which recognition I understand to consist in giving to our ambassador new credentials, addressed to the new authorities. I think that what was done in the case of the Provisional Government of 1848 should be done in the present case.4 But, after Gladstone’s answer to the deputation,5 I do not think that there is any chance of inducing him to do this.

Edition: current; Page: [1767]

The second point6 I cannot see in the same light. The Germans have a very strong case. One of the wickedest acts of aggression in history, has been by them successfully repelled, but at the expense of the bitter suffering of many thousand (one might almost say million) households. They have a just claim to as complete a security as any practicable arrangement can give, against the repetition of a similar crime. Unhappily, the character and feelings of the French nation, or at least of the influential and active portion of all political parties, afford no such security. I feel, with you, a strong repugnance to the transfer of a population from one government to another unless by its own expressed desire. If I could settle the terms of peace, the disputed territory should be made into an independent self governing state, with power to annex itself, after a long period (say fifty years), either to France or to Germany; a guarantee for that term of years by the neutral powers (which removes in some measure the objection to indefinite guarantees), or if that could not be obtained, the fortresses being meanwhile garrisoned by German troops. But there may be many objections to this which I do not see; and at all events, our Government would probably suggest it in vain. Our Government is not likely to have the smallest influence at present with Germany. English public opinion might have some little influence. But all demonstrations of the kind seem only likely to encourage France in a hopeless struggle.

If Gladstone had been a great man, this war would never have broken out, for he would have nobly taken upon himself the responsibility of declaring that the English navy should actively aid whichever of the two powers was attacked by the other. This would have been a beginning of the international police we are calling for. I do not much blame Gladstone for not daring to do it, for it requires a morally braver man than any of our statesmen to run this kind of risk.

I have willingly given you my opinion on the points on which you ask it, but I do not wish any public use made of it with my name, as I have no desire to put myself or be put forward in the matter; for public opinion in England appears to me on the whole so reasonable and well intentioned on the subject, as to be likely ultimately to arrive at a right conclusion; and I am not sure whether we have really yet sufficient data as to the mere facts, to entitle us to form a very definite opinion. I am

I am highly honoured by the wish of the Southwark Radical Association to nominate me as a candidate for the School Board,2 and I regret that the pressure of other occupations puts it out of my power to perform the duties of that most important trust.

I have most certainly never on any occasion whatever, in public or private, expressed any approbation of the book entitled Elements of Social Science. Nor am I likely ever to have done so, inasmuch as I very strongly object to some of the opinions expressed in it. You are therefore quite at liberty to say that I am not correctly represented by anyone who asserts that I have commended the book.

I have no improvements to suggest in your paper on elections to the school board.2 I see objections to house to house voting, but those objections are much less strong than in the case of elections to Parliament and are perhaps outweighed by the advantages in this and other elections for local purposes.

By whom, and how, is the Committee of Selection in the City appointed? I am glad that Ellis3 is a member of it; but he ought to be in the School Board himself, as well as you.

What you say of the general indifference to considerations of special qualification, is painfully confirmed by other testimony. The leaders, however, of the working classes do not seem to share this indifference: it was much complained of at a meeting of the Representative Reform Association last Saturday4 in which Odger, Mottershead,5 and Lloyd Jones6 took an active part; and the response was general to what I and others said of the bad quality of the instruction.

You, of all men, ought to be on the Board, and I will certainly urge your claims wherever I have an opportunity.

I have myself received two offers, but the matter does not lie in my speciality, and I have refused.

The Journal des Economistes is not sent here, but to Avignon and I have not seen the September number. I am

No question can be greater or more urgent than that of the relations of the poor to the rich, and though for the rectification of those relations political and social reforms are the principal requisite, I am quite prepared to admit that “practical engineering measures” may be highly useful auxiliaries. But of this part of the subject I cannot deem myself a competent judge; though I should be very willing, when I know your proposals, to tell you whether, in my opinion, there are any objections to them on the score of political economy.

I have not a copy of the Act2 by me, but I have always understood that the prohibition of payment had reference only to payment out of taxes, rates, or any public fund. I do not believe that there exists any legal obstacle to payment of the representatives by their constituents, as the Trades Unions pay their officers & delegates. It would not cost the Trade Societies of Manchester much to pay, if necessary, to those working men whom you may succeed in electing, the weekly wages which they would earn if they worked at their ordinary employment. There appears to me, however, a more serious difficulty. If really, as you say, the working men will not have confidence in Edition: current; Page: [1772] any man as a real working man, who has saved enough to be independent or who can spare even a portion of his time from earning his daily bread, it would appear that the moment they have elected a man they must lost confidence in him if he is to be supported by subscription, since from the moment when he is so supported he ceases to be a working man. I shd have thought it had been the first object of all who have the interest of the working classes at heart, that some among the working men whose talents or good fortune enable them to be pecuniarily better off than the majority of their companions, shd continue to be, & to be considered, still members of the working classes. But if they are to be looked on with suspicion & dislike, this cannot be the case. It has always been my hope that the working classes might come to have a moderate portion of leisure, & I shd regard it as a great misfortune if the moment a working man is able to attain this he shd lose the confidence of his fellow workmen unless he is dependent on their bounty. It cannot be impossible that a working man shd retain the principles which are honestly entertained by so many individuals among the richest classes of the country, merely because he has been able to become a master workman, or a writer, &c. &c, & as he will if he has been born & has generally lived among the working classes, understand & sympathize with them better than most persons of other classes can do, I think such a man shd be trusted till he has proved himself unworthy of trust. Doubtless many men will do so, as many men in every rank shew when put to the test that their real motives for entering into public life were vanity or self interest, but I cannot believe that a larger proportion of men mainly inspired by such unworthy motives will be found among the self-raised men of the working classes than among the self-raised men of the leading mercantile, manufacturing, literary, and others.

I thank you for your kind letter and will order the publisher to send six copies of the “System of Logic” to yourself which I beg that you will dispose of in the manner suggested by you, or in any manner you think best, retaining one copy for the library you mention of your own.2

Will you kindly tell me also whether there are any of my other writings which might be usefully presented to any of the Institutions you mention or to your own Library.

I am glad to hear that you are exerting yourself in favour of Miss Garrett’s election,2 and although I am not disposed to subscribe towards it,3 yet I hope she may succeed.

I hope there may be a chance of your coming into the House of Commons for some early vacancy. There are many signs that the influence of the Ministry for or against a candidate will not go quite so far now as it did at the General Election. I am

I have directed Messrs. Longman to send to your address 6 copies of “System of Logic” 2 of “Examination of Hamilton” 1 of “Dissertations & Discussions” 1 of “Analysis of the Human Mind” written by my father and edited by me, three of “Utilitarianism” and 3 of “Subjection of Women”. I have also directed Mr. Trübner, who is the publisher of “Auguste Comte & Positivism” to send you a copy of that. Please inform me if they all reach you that, if not, I may correct the mistake. One copy of each is for yourself, the remainder to be employed by you in the manner proposed in your letters, or otherwise in any better mode which occurs to you.

I am sorry that the rules of the Cobden Working Men’s Club, Bermondsey Edition: current; Page: [1774] Square, limit its advantages to “males.” I shd like to see women admitted on equal terms to all such societies. At least the benefit of the Library ought surely, on every consideration, be extended to them. From the just & enlightened opinion you express respecting Mixed Schools I hope that we are of the same opinion also about Mixed Libraries.2

I have been much disappointed at not seeing Lady Amberley’s lecture2 in the Fortnightly yet.3 I hope it is to be in the December number.

When I last heard from you you mentioned that you might have some points on which you would wish to speak to me. I do not know whether that time is yet come; if so I shd be glad to see you at any time if you will let me know when. As I understand you have not a home in London now, we have a bed at your disposal when you come down here.

I am glad to see you have not yielded to the utterly false & mistaken sympathy with France4 & indeed I go farther than you do on the other side. Stern justice is on the side of the Germans, & it is in the best interests of France itself that a bitter lesson shd now be inflicted upon it, such as it can neither deny nor forget in the future. The whole writing, thinking, & talking portion of the people undoubtedly share the guilt of L. Napoleon, the moral guilt of the war, & feel neither shame nor contrition at anything but the unlucky results to themselves. Undoubtedly the real nation, the whole mass of the Edition: current; Page: [1775] people, are perfectly guiltless of it; but then they are so ignorant that they will allow the talkers & writers to lead them into just such corners again if they do not learn by bitter experience what will be the practical consequences of their political indifference. The peasantry of France like the women of England have still to learn that politics concern themselves. The loss of Alsace & Lorraine will perhaps be about as painless a way of learning this lesson as could possibly be devised.5

As I intend to publish the inclosed2 or something like it in one of the papers I send it to you first to know whether you think it best that I shd send it first to the Times through yourself. I almost take it for granted that you are of my way of thinking in the matter & that the articles in the Times3 I so strongly object to cannot be yours. If you think it best that it shd find its way to the Times merely through the post might I ask you to be kind enough to close it & drop it into a letter box to save the time that would be lost in returning it to me as I intend to send it to the Times before sending it elsewhere, in case they think fit to insert it.

You will be glad to hear, if you have not already heard, that the Commons Committee yesterday acted in the spirit of your telegram, by determining to bring in their own Epping Forest Bill in the approaching session, whether the Government bring in theirs or not.2 It was also determined to take up the subject of the New Forest, and that of the preservation of footpaths, with a view, on the latter subject, of getting the power of stopping paths put into better hands.

The newspapers are raging and blustering on the subject of Russia,3 in a manner which will be very dangerous, if the Government and the House of Commons once think that their ravings express the opinion of the country. Writers who for many months have never ceased sounding an alarm about our total want of preparation for a war even of self defence—telling us that we have neither troops, nor horses, nor guns, nor officers, nor organisation, nor men capable of giving us these things—all, I believe, too true—now demand that we should instantly say to Russia, Retract that declaration, or War: and when Russia refuses (as what power, in such a case, would not refuse?) we are to go to war with Russia at once, and as they themselves think not improbable, with Prussia too. And all this, for what? Because Russia shakes off an obligation which, though it may sometimes perhaps be rightly imposed as a temporary penalty for unprovoked aggression, no nation can ever be expected permanently to submit to. One would think such a thing had never happened before, as that a nation on whom hard terms had been imposed by victorious enemies, has ever treated them as no longer binding after she had recovered her strength. The truth is, such things are often happening, and must often be submitted to, when the object itself is not worth a war; and so it will be, until treaties are concluded, as they ought to be, for terms of years only, instead of affecting to be perpetual. Will any one pretend that a nation can bind its posterity for all time by the conditions to which it has been forced to submit at a moment of difficulty? If not, such stipulations, unless they still remain in themselves desirable, must be allowed to become obsolete; and the only questions are, after what lapse of time, and under Edition: current; Page: [1777] what conditions; questions which no one, I believe, is yet prepared to answer. Strength and opportunity have always decided them hitherto.

When we consider that England might have done the inestimable service to mankind of preventing the present terrible war,4 if we had chosen to run a very slight risk of being involved in it ourselves; the proposal that after shrinking from this, we should rush precipitately into war to limit the number of Russian ships of war in the Euxine, shews a degree of criminal fatuity almost greater than that of Louis Napoleon and his advisers, four months ago. I am

We congratulate you very heartily upon your marriage,2 of which it gives us great pleasure to hear. Home life is the best possible “milieu” for work, & I hope you will be able to subordinate your work to the claims of your health, a task however which is found very difficult by everybody who can & will work well.

I am very anxious just now that there shd be some proper protest against the infatuation of our press on the Russian question.3 I can compare it to nothing but the infatuation of the French press which we have all been wondering at. Almost in the same breath in which our journals tell us only too truly that we are utterly unprepared for war, nay unprepared for the most essential defence, they call upon us to declare war with one of the most powerful military empires of the world—a naval power too, & that at the very same time that our quarrel with America is still pending.4 So much for their common sense. As for the rights of the question, it is doubtful whether they are not substantially on the side of Russia. At all events we are not bound in honour to attempt to carry out the Treaty when our most important co-signatory can give no help.5 Least of all are we bound in honour to insist Edition: current; Page: [1778] upon the perpetual adhesion to a treaty which in all probability we ought to be ready to abrogate. As for the argument that Russia is simply casting off all treaty obligations, that simply points to the fact that all such obligations always have been disowned directly the party unwillingly bound by them perceives a relaxation of force in the powers which attempted to bind it. This will always happen so long as treaties are made in perpetuity. Were they terminable, as they ought to be, those who object to them would have a rational hope of escape in some more moral way than an appeal to the same brute force which imposed them. It points also to the inherent weakness of the scheme of joint treaties & guarantees which must of their own nature fall to pieces directly there is any great change in the conditions or the relations of the joint powers. This treaty of 1856 shd have been allowed to fall into disuse. That it has not been so allowed is a legacy of the evil Palmerstonian days. Now, I conceive that the only dignified thing for us to do is to let the treaty be abrogated by Russia with a protest reserving our own liberty of action. The way in which Guizot dealt with the annexation of Cracow6 is a case in point & would form a very good precedent for us in this matter.

We shall hope to see you on Tuesday next as you say in the forenoon. There is a train at 35 min. past 12 from Ch. X,7 by which perhaps you can come & take luncheon with us.

I perfectly understand that what you & other thoughtful men, regard as the important point in this matter is the declaration of the Russian Govt that it intends to throw off one of the obligations of the Treaty,3 without asking the consent of the other contracting parties. My position, however, is that it is not every breach of treaty that requires to be, or that ought to be, resented by war. The fons et origo mali is the great error of concluding treaties Edition: current; Page: [1779] in perpetuity, instead of only for a term of years; which, by making it inevitable and sometimes even a duty to break treaties, creates that conflict of possible obligations which both fosters & shields unconscientiousness. No treaty is fit to be perpetual. When, however, a treaty is an amicable contract between nations for their joint advantage, it is in most cases possible to get necessary modifications effected by joint consent. But it is not, & never has been thought to be so in the case of treaties which are real capitulations—terms of peace imposed by victors on the vanquished expressly because known to be disadvantageous to them. Even such treaties if they were temporary might be kept. But when no term is fixed for their expiration these treaties—those conditions of them especially which directly restrain the freedom of action of the country—always have been & always are violated as soon as the nation on whom they are imposed is able & willing to risk another war. And such violation is habitually condoned, unless the other parties to the violated treaty think the particular object worth a war. Was there ever a more direct violation of a treaty to which all the powers of Europe were parties,4 than was committed by France when she placed another Bonaparte on the throne? But what country dreamed of going to war with France to prevent or chastise that breach of engagement? Instances more or less similar are too frequent in recent history for it to be necessary to enumerate them; but there is one worth mentioning because it affords a precedent applicable to the present case. When Russia, Austria, & Prussia combined in violation of treaties, to destroy the Republic of Cracow & annex it to Austria,5 Guizot was foreign minister of France. He made a public declaration, I do not remember if it was by a circular to his diplomatic agents or by a speech in the Chamber, or by both, that France took notice of this breach of treaties; that she did not intend to take any active measures in opposition to it; but that she reserved to herself the exercise of all such rights as the violation without her consent of a treaty to which she was a party, in her judgment restored to her. It seems to me that something similar to this is the only wise & dignified course for the English Govt to take: unless indeed the repudiated engagement be such as it would enforce de novo if the thing were res integra, & that too at the cost of a war under the most disadvantageous & perilous circumstances: but as you, in common I shd think with all rational persons who know anything of the subject, totally reject this supposition, I need not discuss it.

As for Mr Forster, with the fullest respect for his many excellent qualities, Edition: current; Page: [1780] he is so hot headed a man—so thorough a Quaker unfranchised6—that he needs little inducement to come to blows. However I venture to think that he knows nothing whatever about foreign politics. Excuse me for saying that you have not chosen your instance well if you thought I shd think his opinion could add any weight to yours.

Thanks for your kind invitation, but I am too busy just now to avail myself of it.

The newspapers are madder than ever, and it is alarming to hear of the kind of persons, some of whom participate in the madness. You have, no doubt, seen my protest in the Times.2 We have much need of calm good sense in our public men in this matter at present.

I am very happy that you so entirely agree with me about this insane clamour for war.2 I think there is a great deal in your argument. Even were there no other reason the total inability of the most powerful of Edition: current; Page: [1781] the parties to the treaty to do anything towards enforcing it goes a very great way indeed to release the others from any obligation they might have contracted to do so. Will you not write a letter on the subject to one of the newspapers?3 Every additional protest at this particular time is of great value by shewing that Englishmen are not all mad together, & that those who determine future opinion will pass a severe judgment on a government which should sacrifice the safety of England to mere bluster & brag. To do the present Govt justice however it is my belief that they only want support from the public to shew themselves yielding & conciliatory; & therefore we ought all the more to give public expression to this point of view.4 Those who pretend that we are bound by our engagements to go to war rely chiefly on the tripartite treaty of England, France, & Austria. I send a page of the Economist which contains it.5 By the first article those powers guarantee, jointly & severally, not the Treaty with Russia, but the integrity of the Ottoman Dominions. It cannot be pretended by any one that this guarantee comes into force until Turkey is attacked. By the second article, they engage to consider any infraction of the treaty a casus belli: & if there are causes, to determine with Turkey & with one another what it has become necessary to do. This merely promises that when a case has arisen which gives them a right to go to war, they will take counsel together whether to do so or not. But a still plainer point is that by this Treaty the three powers did not bind themselves to Turkey at all. Turkey was not a party to the Treaty. They bound themselves only to one another, & can therefore release one another from the engagement. More, since one of the three, France, cannot possibly fulfil that engagement it cannot require the others to do so, nor is there the least probability that Austria will make any such requirement from us while even if she did the practical impossibility of attaining the end without the aid of France would be a full justification for non-compliance, even in the case of the 1st article, much more in that of the second. It is perhaps also worth mentioning, for the sake of the completeness of the argument, that this very condition of the neutralization of the Black Sea has been already broken through by the U. S. & that on that occasion none of the contracting parties to the Treaty thought fit even to protest.

With regard to Utilitarianism,6 you have not said anything yet which would give to the most irrational or most irritable person living anything to “forgive.” But were you to attack my book or my arguments with any amount of severity I shd only see in the attack, coming from one of whose friendship I am so certain, an additional proof of friendship. Of course one is more glad Edition: current; Page: [1782] when a friend agrees with one in opinion than when he differs, unless he brings one over to his opinion. This you have not done, as yet. I think you will find all your arguments answered in Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals & Legislation7 or in my father’s Fragment on Mackintosh,8 long before I wrote anything on the subject.

We have had two very pleasant excursions, one on the Wye, & one through Belgium & Germany to Geneva.9 From there Helen went on to Avignon to fetch some of Buckle’s MSS, as we made up our minds that the posts through France would be too irregular to enable her to carry on the printing from there this winter.

During our journey along the Rhine & through Switzerland & my stay at Geneva we had most exceptionally beautiful weather, seeing the scenery more finely in some respects than we had ever done before: Indeed we had never seen such magnificent autumn colouring; it reminded one of the descriptions one reads of America. I return your letter in case you want to use it in writing to any of the papers.

At the meeting of the Commons Preservation Committee yesterday, the resolution to proceed with our Epping Forest Bill this year was, with my full concurrence, rescinded.2 I am very sorry you were not there, but I think, if you had been, you would have agreed with us. The principal reason which decided my own opinion, was that the danger of being thwarted by the Government would now be incurred by going on, not by stopping short: for, the time for giving the first notices having expired, the Government cannot now bring in a bad bill of their own this session; but if we brought in ours, they would be enabled, and probably induced, to turn our good bill into a bad one. Another reason is, that our Solicitor says the fight would cost us some £5000, a sum we have not got and do not expect to get. There were some Edition: current; Page: [1783] minor reasons: particularly this, that bills have been prepared to carry into effect the voluntary transfer of all Lord Spencer’s3 rights in Wandsworth and Wimbledon Commons to the public, for an annual payment equal to what he now gets from them; and it is hoped that these bills when actually passed will establish a precedent, and also make other lords of manors more compliant when they see that Lord Spencer has had to give up the attempt to enforce ulterior claims by law. I think myself, that the public mind grows more favourable to us every year, and that our agitation would be more effectual next year than this, especially considering with what subjects the public mind is now engrossed; and the New Forest bill of the Government will give a good opportunity for putting forth right doctrines on the whole subject.

I am truly glad that you report so favourably of the opinion of the Cambridge Liberals on the war frenzy. I think every day will now raise up more resistance. Did you see the excellent letters of Cairnes and Freeman in yesterday’s Daily News?4 I am myself writing something for Morley on the subject.5 I shall be glad to hear what your correspondents think about public meetings. One has been already appointed for Birmingham6 on Friday the 2nd and I have been consulted about one in Westminster. I am

I am most happy to hear that public feeling in Birmingham is believed to be against the frantic clamour for war, and that it is in contemplation to hold Edition: current; Page: [1784] a public meeting next week,2 to which you have done me the honour of inviting me. But the uncertainty of public events, on which indeed the holding of the meeting is itself contingent, makes it difficult for me to determine beforehand whether to take part in it. I have good hopes that the course taken by the Government will be the right one, and that if a meeting is needed, it will be to give them support. We shall probably know more about this, some days before the day named. In my case I should be glad to hear when you have come to a final decision about the meeting.

I have been thinking much over our conversation when I last saw you, & I feel so very strongly how wrong it is that your health shd be seriously risked as I fear it is being, by the impossibility of putting the Edition: current; Page: [1785] F[ortnightly] Review aside for a time that if you cannot find any other friend to whom you would like to confide it, & if you think it would be possible for me to do it for you in a satisfactory manner temporarily, I shd be very happy to do what I can. We do not intend in any case to leave England until my daughter has finished, or very nearly finished, her task with Mr B’s MSS.,2 & as her health only permits her to work very slowly she has no expectation that this will be for many months. The books & MSS she is obliged to refer to are so voluminous that they cannot well be carried about. They must be worked at at home, & as the stoppage or uncertainty of the French posts3 debars her from doing it at Avignon, we intend to remain here till it is done. It would be some satisfaction if this circumstance shd enable me to be of use to yourself; at all events shd other motives induce you to accept my proposal, you need have no scruples on the score of keeping us in England. I presume that the business part of the Review—money matters, advertisements, printing &c.—are or could be deputed either to the publisher or to some one who could act as man of business; & I shd think that whoever this may be might in the event of my undertaking the temporary editorship, write, under my directions, any letters that might be absolutely essential to contributors, & might receive & send on to me letters & articles. I could in that case undertake to read & judge of the articles & take upon myself the literary editorship, & either forward the letters to you or read them & forward only such as I might think you ought to see. What I myself shd most shrink from in undertaking such a thing, would be not the work of editing itself, but the enormous increase of unnecessary correspondence which I fear I should incur if it were generally known that I had undertaken it & on this account I think it would be best for letters to be sent to the publisher or some man of business, & for some one, other than myself, to be the ostensible name in such correspondence as could not be carried on by yourself. If you still continue to feel that an interval of at least comparative leisure would be of benefit to you, & can make no more satisfactory arrangement for the Review, I beg that you will not scruple to avail yourself of any help it is in my power to give.

The inclosed letter is one which I have been requested by Miss Robertson2Edition: current; Page: [1786] to forward to you. The newspaper cutting came to me from Mrs Howe,3 of Boston, with a request that I would send it to you. Both ladies say they have written to you, and no doubt they have given whatever explanation they thought necessary.

I confess I do not hope for any good from Mrs Howe’s projected congress.

I noticed the article in the Echo,2 and remarked how good it was, and although I did not know it was your writing, I saw clearly that the matter must have been obtained from you. The Times had a long extract from the article yesterday.3 I hope you will go on in the same work. I wanted whatever you could furnish me on the subject, because I often lend and give away the papers you send me to people who are likely to work usefully in the matter. They have arrived safely, and I hope to get good use made of them.

The chairman of the late meeting on Women’s Suffrage had already conveyed to me the invitation which I have been honoured with, to attend and address a meeting; but though it would give me much pleasure to do so, I have been obliged to answer that my engagements do not admit of my visiting Glasgow this winter.

I do not care much to discuss the C[ontagious] D[iseases] A[cts]2 with yourself, because, being willing as you are to allow women their fair share in electoral representation, you hold a perfectly defensible position when you differ from them on a point of legislation which concerns them. The position of those men, however, who, while they refuse women any share in legislation, enact laws which apply to women only, admittedly unpopular among women, is totally different from yours, and appears to me as base as it is illogical, unless indeed they are prepared to maintain that women have no other rights than the cattle respecting whom a kindred Act has been passed.3 I fully agree with you that the true fundamental point to be set right is the franchise. I will, however, without referring to all the points in your argument which I disagree with, note down one or two of my reasons for differing with you on the main question.

1. There is very strong evidence that in the country (France) where legislation similar to the C. D. A. has been long in force, and its full effects have been produced, it increases the number of the class of women to whom it applies. The comparative safety supposed to be given, increases the demand, and the number of women temporarily removed from the market makes vacancies in the supply which have to be, and are, made up. This is not necessarily shown by statistical returns; inasmuch as these can take no account of the great mass of clandestine prostitution, practised in evasion of the law, and which, if prevented, could only be so by a still more tyrannical use of the powers given to the police, and by exposing respectable women to a still greater amount of injury and indignity than at present.

2. No reason can be given for subjecting women to medical inspection Edition: current; Page: [1790] which does not apply in a greater degree to the men who consort with them. The process is painful, even physically, and sometimes dangerous, to women—not at all so to men: and it is idle to say that its application to men is impracticable: the same kind and degree of espionage which detects a prostitute, could equally detect the men who go with her. The law, being one-sided, inflicted on women by men, and delivering over a large body of women intentionally, and many other women unintentionally, to insulting indignity at the pleasure of the police, has the genuine characteristics of tyranny.

You say that you think there is no weight in the objection that the law applies to one sex only, inasmuch as enlistment does the same. I think you will see that my replies are unanswerable. In the first place, the laws that regulate enlistment are not made by women only, themselves not liable to it, and then applied to men only, who have no voice in making them; as is the case in those penalties, or discipline, proposed to be applied to prostitutes by a legislature which neither consists of, nor is elected by, any proportion of women. Moreover, so long as women who offer themselves as soldiers are not accepted, the being a soldier must be taken as a privilege, and not a penalty, of sex. If women were only not soldiers because they are incapable of the fatigue and labour, then those women who in men’s clothes have proved themselves capable would not be ejected on their sex being discovered. So long as this is the case, military service is as much a privilege of our aristocracy as it is in Mahomedan countries where Christians are not allowed to serve. And the discipline to which this aristocracy voluntarily submits itself through the voice of a legislature which itself elects, cannot be compared to the discipline inflicted by those who do not share it, without the consent of those who are alone exposed to it.—Secondly, if it was impossible for any man to expose himself to military discipline without a woman as his companion, and if he, only, was liable to the discipline and punishment, the case would be more nearly parallel. You must remember that no woman can render herself liable as a prostitute without a man for her accomplice: yet when it comes to the punishment, or, if you prefer so to consider it, the discipline, we hear no more of him. Thus the man only is a soldier, and he subjects himself voluntarily to the discipline: a man and a woman must be associated in prostitution, the woman only is subjected to discipline, and that without her own consent.

3. There are important medical opinions against, as well as in favour of, the Acts. If the preponderance is in favour, this carries no weight with me; for professional men look at questions from a professional point of view, and it being a medical man’s professional duty to ascertain disease as early as possible and put it under treatment at once, this professional association is quite sufficient to account for a medical bias. I suppose medical men would desire to place men also under the discipline, which would then be decidedly Edition: current; Page: [1791] less odious, and more effectual. We cannot take their authority for the half, and then refuse it for the whole. Some of the warmest medical advocates for the Acts admit that their operation can never be satisfactory until men also are submitted to them, which, they say, they know men will never consent to.

4. With regard to those who object to the C. D. A. as encouraging vice, I do not undertake to defend all they say; but I think them so far in the right, that even if there were the strongest reasons of other kinds for the Act, it would always have this for one of its drawbacks. To soldiers and ignorant persons it cannot but seem that legal precautions taken expressly to make that kind of indulgence safe, are a license to it. There is no parallel case of an indulgence or pursuit avowedly disgraceful and immoral for which the government provides safeguards. A parallel case would be the supplying of stomach pumps for drunkards, or arrangements for lending money to gamblers who may otherwise be tempted into theft in moments of desperation, and thus injure their wives and families. We have no such parallels by which to prove to men of lax habits in this particular that we disapprove of, while taking care of them. It is tolerably plain, therefore, that as a matter of fact the legislature does regard this with less disfavour than any other practice generally considered immoral and injurious to society: and the public evidence of its doing so must of necessity tend to remove feelings of shame or disapprobation connected with it. I am Dear Sir

Yours very truly

J.S.M.

Edition: current; Page: [1792]

1871

I like most of the Resolutions2 very much (I have made a few verbal corrections in some of them). The only ones I do not agree with are Resolutions 8 and 18. I do not think it safe to trust entirely to voluntary enlistment for the large defensive force which this and every other country now requires. The perfection of a military system seems to me to be, to have no standing army whatever (except the amount required for foreign possessions) but to train the whole of the able bodied male population to military service. I believe that with previous school drill, six months training at first, and a few days every succeeding year, would be amply sufficient for the infantry. This would not take away the young men from civil occupations to any material extent: the six months would be taken at the very beginning of active life; and there would be at once the greatest amount of force possible, and the strongest security against its being called out unnecessarily: for a service from which no one would be exempt would inevitably be unpopular, unless the cause were one for which the nation at large felt a real enthusiasm. Any military force composed by voluntary enlistment even under the improved circumstances contemplated by you, would have, in a greater or less degree, the inconveniences of a standing army: it would consist principally of the more idle and irregular part of the population, it would acquire a professional military spirit, and it would have time to learn habits of passive and active obedience to its commanders which would make it, if of any considerable magnitude, an apt instrument of despotism.

The only thing I know of which would effect newspaper reform would be to start a first rate newspaper. The obstacle to this is the difficulty of obtaining money to set up such a newspaper and carry it on for a considerable time at a pecuniary loss: and this obstacle seems likely to be of long continuance.

Short of this I do not see what there is to be done, except for each of us to do what he can towards improving any of the existing newspapers, either by writing in it or by such personal influence as he may be able to exercise.

You are not mistaken in thinking that I shall sympathize with anything you may do that tends to so desirable an object: but I cannot find time at present for discussing the subject with you, either by accepting your kind invitation to dinner or otherwise. I am

Your letter of Dec. 31 only reached me on Monday evening after post hour, so that it was impossible for me to answer it in time for your meeting on Tuesday.

I am much honoured by the wish of the Committee of the Ladies’ Sanitary Association that I should take the Chair at their intended public meeting; but it will not be in my power to visit Birmingham either for that purpose, or for the meeting which I am happy to hear it is intended to hold in support of Women’s Suffrage.

When several years ago I offered you the £80 it was on the supposition that £50 added to what you have & what you then earned would meet your wants: and as you had mentioned the Policies to me I made it £80 to enable you to be free from anxiety about that. I will now make it £100 and enclose a cheque for £5 for the December quarter. As to the Policies can you tell me whether if you sell them & invest the proceeds, the interest will be all paid to you? or whether Mr C[olman] will have any claim?

I rejoice to hear that your short visit to the seaside has somewhat improved your health, but I am afraid that its permanent reestablishment Edition: current; Page: [1795] will be much retarded if you work up to the utmost limits of your strength. I hope that you will consider my proposal2 as still holding good & that you will have recourse to it at once if you find that your health does not continue to improve.

If I were to write on the attitude which England ought to take in regard to the war,3 without entering into the subject of the war itself, what I should have to say would be soon said, for my answer would be, no attitude at all. It does not seem that there is any urgent necessity for saying this, as there is at present no danger that England might interfere in any way. There is not likely to be any party in Parliament for going to war with Germany in support of France. I greatly regret to see the political leaders of the working classes led away by the Comtists4 & by the mere name of a republic into wishing to drag England into fighting for a government which dreads to face any popular representation & is forcing the French peasantry by the fear of being shot, into going up against their will to place themselves under the fire of the German armies; but there is not the slightest shadow of a probability that such counsels will be listened to by the government or by any party in Parliament. The really vital subject of debate will be the necessity of strengthening ourselves for military purposes & the subject on which Cairnes is writing5 seems to me to be that which, at the present moment, it is of real importance to take up energetically.

If, on the other hand, the question to be written about is the war itself, & its probable or desirable issues, I would rather that this task shd devolve on any one than on myself. It is only an evident call of duty that would make me willing to write & publish all I think about the conduct of the French from first to last & about their claim, aggressors as they were, & defeated as they are, to dictate the terms of peace.

Any one who writes on the subject might make good use of a remarkable pamphlet by Count Agénor de Gasparin6 in which he proposes as the only right condition of peace the erection of Alsace & German Lorraine into an independent & neutralized republic. I do not know if the most useful thing that you could publish at this moment on the subject would not be a short analysis of this pamphlet with copious translated extracts. I am afraid the French authorities by their obstinacy have let the time go by when the German people might have been induced to content themselves with this amount Edition: current; Page: [1796] of concession. But it is really though not unattended with difficulties the only settlement that would be just to all parties; & by bringing it forward the minds of some readers might perhaps be put upon a right train of thought; & even the newspaper writers would have an idea suggested to them their advocacy of which would make the nation less contemptible than they are making it at present.

If you would like to use M. de Gasparin’s pamphlet for this or any other purpose, my copy is at your service.

Having only returned home yesterday I did not get the Draft Resolutions2 until after the meeting. I think that the alterations have considerably improved them, & that their publication will do much good, though I myself go the whole length with Cairnes.3

Of course Mrs Fawcett has far better claims to be a member of the Political Economy Club than many of its present members, and I need hardly say that I should support her warmly if proposed. I think, however, that considering how perfectly well every one knows my opinions on the subject, the proposal would scarcely come with a good grace from me. It would have in some degree the appearance of wishing to impose my own opinions upon others. With regard to any one else proposing Mrs Fawcett, I should say yes, at once, but with one proviso, that there is a probable chance of her being elected; for as I do not doubt we could succeed in a few years,2 it would be foolish to court failure now by undue haste. I think, therefore, that the best course would be for you to take counsel with Mr Newmarch,3 a hearty friend to women’s suffrage, and the best judge of the probable leanings of the Club as a whole. If he thinks it judicious to put Mrs Fawcett’s name among the candidates, there will not be the smallest difficulty in finding friends to propose and second her among influential members of the Club less specially associated with the women’s movement than myself, and therefore in the particular case more suited for the purpose. I am

It is always a pleasure & an advantage to hear from you, for your letters always contain, however briefly, valuable information which the ordinary sources do not give, respecting the various important movements Edition: current; Page: [1798] going on in the U.S. It is most interesting to have news of the struggle which you & others are making against the characteristic evils of the city of New York & when I hear that your efforts to extend education among the dangerous classes have already had a perceptible influence in the amount of juvenile delinquency as shown by the prison records, I congratulate you most heartily, for success of that kind goes nearer than any other to the root of the mischief, & every step made renders further progress easier. It is also most gratifying to hear that there is an increased feeling for the reform & purification of the Civil Service. That the cause of free trade was greatly advancing we already knew; but that is a small thing compared with the other: besides, a people like the Americans who really attend to their own public business must find out that what is called protection is an organised system of pillage of the many by the few, & the different classes of the pillaged must soon see that the remedy is to put an end to the pillaging & not to ask to be compensated by permission to pillage somebody else, with an ultimate result like placing all Americans in a circle each with his hand in the pocket of his righthand neighbour. The economic loss & waste of all this is tremendous, but the resources of your country & the facilities of living in it are so great that you can bear this waste for a time as no other country could do. But the corruption of your politicians is a far more serious matter; it saps the very roots of free government; & the triumphant success of villainy by corrupting your legislatures & even the bench of justices, cannot go on without demoralizing the whole nation. As you truly say, the only remedy is in awakening the public conscience. The still uncorrupted rural population,—Mr Disraeli’s “territorial democracy”—who have so often come forward & saved the country when it seemed on the brink of being led by the professional politicians into some great folly or iniquity—have to be awakened to the disgrace & danger of leaving the affairs of the country in the hands of men who care for them only as a source of corrupt profit. They have only to refuse their votes to these men & the rule is at an end.

You wish that our writers would discuss the idea of an International Court of Arbitration. They do discuss it: more has been said & written on the subject in the last year than ever before. But how little prepared the European world is for the realization of the idea may be seen in the fact, that the leaders of our working classes, who have been more zealous for peace than any other class, & who at the beginning of this war made a strong demonstration against allowing ourselves to be drawn into it, are now or at least many of them are loudly demanding that we shd go to war with Germany in behalf of France. I believe that the conditions of a settlement of differences by arbitration do exist between G.B. & the U.S.: because in the first place as I believe, there really exists in both countries a sincere repugnance to going to Edition: current; Page: [1799] war with one another; & besides, the ostensible causes of our disagreements are always the real ones. But how could the quarrel between France & Germany have been referred to arbitration? The pretended grievance was a mere sham; the cause of war was that France could not bear to see Germany made powerful by union. If such a war could have been prevented it would not have been by a judicial process but by the forcible interference of neutrals to aid the party attacked. So with the Crimean war: the real question was not about any special ground of quarrel: it was, whether Russia shd be allowed to conquer Turkey or not, which question did not admit of being referred to arbitration. When the nations of Europe shall have given up national hatreds & schemes of national aggrandizement, & when their institutions shall be sufficiently assimilated to prevent any of the governments from seeing in the greatness & prosperity of another state a danger to its power over its own people, they will probably be all so sincerely desirous of peace that they will never dream of any other than an amicable settlement of any accidental differences that may still arise. And every step taken in the improvement of the intelligence & morality of mankind brings this happy result a little nearer.

There is a sort of stagnation just now in our internal politics as the public can hardly feel interested in anything but the war. The bringing of the new Education Act into force is however one exception; the elections of the School Boards for London & other places have excited great interest: & there will probably be a great extension of instruction in reading & writing among the children of the poor. How much more will be taught or how well time must shew; but no real friend of popular education regards this Education Act as a final measure. The right of women to a voice in the management of education has been asserted by the triumphant return of two ladies as members of the London School Board2 & of several others in different parts of the country.

You ask if we were prepared for the tremendous collapse of the French military system. Nobody I suppose expected it to be so sudden & complete, but to those who knew France there was nothing surprising in it when it came. I hope it will tend to dispel the still common delusion that despotism is a vigorous government. There never was a greater mistake. When a government is continually requiring its functionaries to commit rascalities for its sake, they will go on committing rascalities for their own: & as there can be no publicity & no effectual system for the detection of abuse when the government itself has an interest in concealment, the funds intended for the service of the State find their way into private pockets & all who want to get rid of onerous public obligations are able to buy them off. No doubt even Frederick II & the first Napoleon were often cheated by their officers; but an indolent Edition: current; Page: [1800] man like the present Napoleon, who moreover by the circumstances of his usurpation could get few honest men to serve him, was peculiarly exposed to have the whole of his administration one mass of profligate malversation. His folly was that he does not seem to have had any suspicion of this, but rushed into war in reliance on ground which was completely rotten under his feet.

Your idea of a general Federation, or United States of Europe, has occurred to many people, & has been a good deal talked and written about of late years among advanced philanthropists, especially on the Continent; indeed, there can be no advanced philanthropist who does not look forward to something of the kind as the ultimate result of human improvement. But a great many things have to be got rid of, & a great many others to be created, before it will begin to be useful to pursue this federation as a practical object. Such a federal system supposes a very great degree of mutual trust on the part of the communities which comprise it, in at least the good intentions of one another. This trust substantially exists between the States of the American Union (with the temporary exception of the relations between North and South) but the States of Europe do not trust one another, & none of them really trusts its own government much less the governments of the other states. There is moreover such a want of homogeneity among them, such differences in their opinions, their institutions, their education, & among some of them there is still so much mutual antipathy that none of them would choose to give up so much of its power over its own affairs into the hands of the others, as your scheme would require. Every improvement however which takes place either in the internal government or in the education of any of them, tends to diminish these obstacles & to bring universal peace, grounded on federal institutions, so much the nearer & it is to such improvements we must trust for bringing about that & all the other salutary changes in human affairs which philanthropists look forward to.

I send you my acknowledgment of the honour done me by the New York Liberal Club2 & I have in accordance with your request taken the opportunity of adding a few arguments against Protectionism considered with reference to America.

I duly received your writings on the Women question.3 I had already, with much pleasure remarked some of them in the journals devoted to that cause. I have long been of the opinion expressed by you “that the cause of over-population” or at all events a necessary condition of it “is woman’s subjugation, & that the cure is her enfranchisement.” It is one of the endless benefits that will flow from that greatest & most fundamental of all improvements in human society.

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of Nov. 11, transmitting the Diploma by which the New York Liberal Club do me the honour of signifying my election as an Honorary Member of their body.2 What you tell me respecting the origin & purposes of the Liberal Club, reflects great credit on its founders. There cannot be a higher or more important aim than that of asserting & maintaining individuality of thought & character, Edition: current; Page: [1802] together with its necessary complement, the fullest latitude of mutual criticism. Such Associations are a means of making head against the greatest danger of a settled state of society, the danger of intellectual stagnation; & help towards raising up men qualified to speak to the public with decisive effect on those political & social questions which are continually presenting fresh demands on the collective thought & intellectual discernment of the nation.

You intimate that it might be acceptable if in acknowledging your communication, I were to take the opportunity of expressing my opinion on the desirableness of a Free Trade policy for America. I cannot suppose that those who have thought me deserving of the distinguished honour conferred on me, can have anything to learn respecting my opinion on a question of this nature. But I shd not be doing justice to my sense of that honour or to the interest I feel in the objects & in the prosperity of the Club, were I not to comply with the wish expressed by you in its behalf.

I hold every form of what is called Protection to be an employment of the powers of Government to tax the Many with the intention of promoting the pecuniary gains of a Few: I say the intention, because even that desired object is very often not attained, & never to the extent that is expected. But whatever gain there is, is made by the Few, & them alone; for the labouring people employed in the protected branches of industry are not benefitted. Wages do not range higher in the protected than in other employments; they depend on the general rate of the remuneration of labour in the country, & if the demand for particular kinds of labour is artificially increased, the consequence is merely that labour is attracted from other occupations, so that employment is given in the protected trades to a greater number, but not at a higher remuneration. The gain by Protection when there is gain, is for the employers alone. Such legislation was worthy of Great Britain under her unreformed constitution, when the powers of legislation were in the hands of a limited class of great landowners & wealthy manufacturers. But in a democratic nation like the U.S. it is a signal instance of dupery, & I have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the American Many than to believe that a handful of manufacturers will be able to retain by fallacy & sophistry that power of levying a toll on every other person’s earnings, which the powerful aristocracy of England with all their political ascendancy & social prestige have not been able to keep possession of.

The misapprehension, & confusion of thought which exist on this subject—misapprehension & confusion quite genuine, I allow, in the Protectionist mind—arise from a very small number of oversights, natural enough perhaps in those who have never thought on the subject.

1. When people see manufactories built & hands set to work to produce at home what had previously been imported from abroad, they imagine that all Edition: current; Page: [1803] this is fresh industry & fresh employment, over & above that which existed before, & that whatever increased production takes place in these particular trades is so much additional wealth created in the country. The oversight is in not considering that this additional labour & capital to which this production is due, are not created, but withdrawn from other employments in which they would have added as much to the wealth of the country, & not only as much, but more, since they would not have needed a subsidy out of every consumer’s pocket to make their employment remunerative. That the apparent increase of employment produced by Protection is a mere transfer from one business to another, is true everywhere but is particularly obvious in America since no one will pretend that labour & capital in the U.S. are in any danger of not finding employment, or that the time is at hand when they will even be obliged to submit to any diminu